Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Mr_Christopher, post: 113862, member: 5038"]Here's my argument - everything in quotes is from the website below: <a href="http://www.hartley.com/natfraud.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.hartley.com/natfraud.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.hartley.com/natfraud.htm</a> "In common usage, fraud and deceit are synonyms for  lying or fooling another person as to the correct identity of a person or thing." SGS is lying and misrepresenting the condition of valuable items. "Fraud as a tort (i.e., a civil wrong exclusive of contract which entitles a plaintiff to recover damages) has recently been defined by the California Supreme Court as follows:  (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure);  (b) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter");  (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance;  (d) justifiable reliance; and  (e) resulting damage." SGS is intending to defraud. he hides behind the notion that grading coins is subjective. While it is subjective to the rest of the world, the fact that he grades his own coins to intentionally sell  them for inflated prices should be enugh on its own. Damages are the easy part. Advertising an MS 70 coin that is actually worth much less causes the buyer to sustain an instant loss, regardless of the purchase price. "First, the "intent to defraud" is actually an intent to induce reliance, to make the other party rely on the false statement. " The buyers see that the coins are "slabbed" and rated mint strike 68+, and then bid accordingly. "Next, the party hearing the misrepresentation must actually and justifiably rely on the misrepresentation. " If its advertised as a diamond, certified as a diamond, but turns out to be CZ ........ Buyers rely on the grade. I could see if the grade was SGS 70 ... very different from the commonly accepted MS 70. I might not be able to ID a MS 70 from a MS 67, but I know what the difference is, and I can look up the values in a book. "Finally, there must be monetary damages caused by the fraud." The purchase price doesn't mean that it is the value of a coin. No reserve auctions always have the risk that the seller won't get what the coin is worth. The buyer might pay a fraction of the real value of a MS 70 coin, but when a MS 65 coin arrives, its not what the buyer paid for. This scammer intentionally misrepresents the grade of coins to influence higher resale prices. The fact that he grades, and then resells the coins without disclosing the fact that he was the grader might be the key to the puzzle ... search Ebay for "coin sgs" There is no disclaimer that SGS and the seller aboncom are the same. That alone should serve as proof of fraud. 3rd party? hardly. I'm talking to my lawyer within the next few days.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches