Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;DonnaML, post: 4432595, member: 110350&quot;]You&#039;re completely ignoring the fact that we don&#039;t simply have Nemo&#039;s recollection of what happened.&nbsp; We have his and Lanz&#039;s email correspondence on the subject, which is &quot;not clear&quot; <u>only</u> if you&#039;re accusing Nemo of forging that correspondence.&nbsp; Lanz had a chance to explain his actions to Nemo in that correspondence, and failed to do so -- again, unless you&#039;re accusing Nemo of omitting relevant correspondence.&nbsp; Given that Lanz has a long history of selling tooled and fake coins -- and being otherwise dishonest in his dealings -- whereas I&#039;m not aware of any history of dishonesty on Nemo&#039;s part, that would be a very serious accusation, for which you would have no evidence -- unlike Nemo, who has persuasive evidence for his accusations. </p><p><br /></p><p>Certainly Nemo&#039;s evidence is persuasive enough for me to believe, given that we&#039;re in the court of public opinion here.&nbsp; What would happen in a real court, in a real litigation, is completely irrelevant.&nbsp; After all, Lanz knows perfectly well that litigation against him in Germany is highly impractical for a non-German like Nemo over such a relatively small amount of money; the attorneys&#039; fees alone would probably far exceed the value of the case. (And although I would argue that Lanz&#039;s business activities in fraudulently marketing and selling coins to the USA via Ebay constitute sufficient contacts to subject him to transactional jurisdiction in a US court, the same would be true of attorneys&#039; fees here in the USA, especially because the issue of jurisdiction would undoubtedly have to be litigated before even reaching the merits.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Therefore, Lanz has little or no incentive to refrain from cheating people, since he apparently doesn&#039;t care about his reputation among knowledgeable collectors.&nbsp; There are always enough uneducated buyers on ebay to allow him to continue profiting from his shady practices.</p><p><br /></p><p>Furthermore, given the relevant email correspondence, the question of whether the coin Nemo purchased is actually authentic or a fake is completely irrelevant to his right to a refund.&nbsp; Again, unless you&#039;re accusing Nemo of forging the correspondence, <b>Lanz expressly told him that he could return the coin, in response to Nemo&#039;s requests for a refund</b>.&nbsp; There is only one commercially reasonable interpretation of Lanz&#039;s communication: that he was telling Nemo to return the coin <b>for a refund</b>.&nbsp; Because a refund was the express subject of their communications, and, in any event, is the only normal outcome of a consumer&#039;s return of purchased goods, absent an express agreement to the contrary.&nbsp; Therefore, there&#039;s no ambiguity in the correspondence that might require further evidence. If Lanz wanted Nemo to return the coin on a consignment basis, with Nemo entitled to receive only the proceeds of a resale, he had every opportunity to say that -- but failed to do so, let alone to obtain Nemo&#039;s agreement to such an arrangement.&nbsp; Whether German or U.S. law were applied, I find it extremely difficult to believe that any court or tribunal would read such unspoken terms into their agreement, or take into account Lanz&#039;s unspoken alleged intentions, given that doing so is completely unnecessary to carry out the parties&#039; agreement.</p><p><br /></p><p>For all its length, your defense of Lanz rests on a bed of sand.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in