Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="imrich, post: 2165205, member: 22331"]I believe if you compare the mechanism used in the PCI action to that used by the Federal Trade Commission in 1990 against PCGS, which merely ended in a consent decree, there's reasonable opinion that the PCGS outcome would have been similar if the PCI action mechanism would have been applied. The FTC didn't apply linkage to an established Federal criminal precedent (e.g. RICO), but merely pursued a Civil filing, which allowed a relatively diminished outcome/action. It's understood the key element in determining damages is the conformance to a specific published standard, regardless of who is the TPG, with any individual(s) knowing/violating that standard in the sale of a commodity, without proper disclosure. In my opinion, from reading public documents, the PCI action was a legal "perfect storm", where TPG, intermediaries, and sales personnel, knew the grade standard, without disclosure to the purchaser. The prosecutor used other recognized TPG and  intermediaries as "experts" to establish the degree of violation, and value of damages. It's reasonable to expect that a similar action in the future, regardless of defendants perceived qualifications, would have a similar outcome when actions are weighed against a written published standard. A new precedent seemingly has been established. Caveat Venditor! JMHO[/QUOTE]