Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 2014747, member: 29643&quot;]Anyone can file a suit. The fact that this was appealed just to be heard as a suit means ANACS probably isn&#039;t in that much trouble. In any event, if ANACS is found somehow liable by the Appellate court, they might be able to question the constitutionality of the underlying law. Torts are intended to prevent individuals from claiming they can&#039;t fulfill a contract due to circumstances created by a third party. Since whatever shopping channel didn&#039;t have a contract with Slater, I don&#039;t see how liability/award would be determined. Slater&#039;s contract was with ICG, if I read that link correctly. Since ICG is generating no business from Slater&#039;s contact (which still makes no sense), they would have no basis for calculating a cost.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the 25% amount: It probably works out to $1 or less per coin. Heck, it&#039;s even possible that the agreement is worded to pay Slater 25% of the actual fees associated with grading, which would be less the costs associated with encapsulation. I can see why Slater would be upset about losing a free $3000 (and probably more) every month, but I really can&#039;t see how ANACS could be held liable for that. Does the liability stem from some sort of non-compete agreement and/or intellectual property argument that would apply to the former ICG employees?[/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