SEGS NOT HONORING GUARANTEE

I haven't seen the Pope post here once

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah.......didn't see no white smoke.........

 

I don't know, it's a tough field this year...

 

First off you have to find an attorney who will take the case. Then there has to be enough money in the case to pay the fees. Since the dispute is about $15K (at the OP's inflated view) or $1K (realistic), we're talking about attorney's fees of $300 - $5,000 - i.e. one nasty letter. At the upper end, an honest lawyer would redirect this to small claims court.

 

In a 20 page thread, it is easy to lose track of the specific value of any claim, and you are right that attorney's fees would certainly eat up any recovery and that this would likely end up in small claims court. With that said, didn't one of the principals of CAC start a legal foundation to combat abuses in numismatics? If so I wonder if this is the type of case that they might consider if there are other potential plaintiffs and that the total amount of class claims could justify a class action suit.

I would also be interested in seeing whether the OP might have success by filing complaints with regulatory agencies to try to pressure SEGS into a fair resolution while minimizing costs. My understanding is that the FTC's 1990 complaint against PCGS went beyond the investment language and there were allegations of false advertising. I wonder what the FTC (or Tennessee state consumer protection organizations) would think or whether it would care about this. SEGS is obviously a much smaller company with less of an influence on the market, but it strikes me as deceptive and false advertising to advertise a guarantee for all SEGS coin and to not honor the said guarantee.

 

IF the FTC were to investigate, SEGS would simply agree not to advertise falsely in the future, point to the updated wording (updated between March and July 2016) and pay a trivial fine.

 

Extort? Wow.

 

Back when I wrote this, myself and others were under the impression that the OP wanted to get $16,000 in reparations. Welcome to the thread.

 

I don't think what he paid has anything to do with it. That he was not the original owner when it was slabbed might make a difference. MIGHT, I say.

He could have inherited it, stole it (no, wait, not that) or found it along the road for that matter. The guarantee says what it says.

I think his only recourse would be to sue for it. Is it worth going that route? I might if I felt I was competent to do it myself without legal help and I certainly am not.

 

I'm still under this impression; after all that's exactly what she wanted and I don't recall her ever admitting that she was completely out of line in making such a wholly ridiculous assertion.

Here, sir... perhaps this will help:

Now, assuming you've read the OP's claims and reasonings, what would you call it?

 

I have a feeling Larry will come up with an amicable solution with the op with the requirement that she make it public here and elsewhere as a damage control remedy then change and clarify the guarantee language. That's the cleanest way to save face and do the right thing. This, however, hinges on him not making a lowball offer and the op not trying to play hardball wanting too much.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/safeharbor.asp

I don't think OP should get a dime..........

 

And if the SEGS Inc. guarantee was not assumed by SEGS LLC, she won't.

 

I don't know the exact details or if it still exists but they do have an article on their page about the NCA which JA runs as a nonprofit to help recover funds.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Very few things in the law are completely black and white, and sometimes it is cheaper for litigants to settle regardless of their legal positions.

The bottom line is that the outcome of this thread depends on several factors:
(1) the amount of pressure that the OP is able to place on SEGS through public shaming, regulatory complaints, or threat of litigation to settle the matter;
(2) whether the OP is willing to spend the time, money, and other resources to pursue this and to institute litigation based on principle with the realization that recovery may be limited;
(3) the small claims procedure in the OP's state, whether SEGS falls within the long arm statute of that state and would otherwise have jurisdiction over the subject matter and personal jurisdiction over SEGS;
(4) the amount of time, money, and resources that SEGS is willing to spend fighting the OP and whether that venue of choice adheres to the American Rule, meaning that SEGS would be forced to pay its own attorney's fees regardless of the outcome since her claim is colorable and not frivolous; etc.

I do not think the OP's claim is worth $16000, but I do think she might be able to put enough pressure for SEGS to offer a reasonable settlement. The pro-SEGS crowd is portraying this as a slam dunk for SEGS. I disagree, and there are facts that are missing that are still relevant. In very limited circumstances, courts may pierce corporate veils especially if the second entity was created merely to dodge creditors and to void warranty claims. But that remains to be seen, and SEGS hasn't been very forthcoming with facts. So we cannot say with 100% certainty what liability SEGS LLC may have based on the presentation in this thread alone on that point.

And even if SEGS LLC would not otherwise have assumed the guarantee, if it cracked the original certified holder and made vague guarantees that all SEGS coins were covered, there are other arguments that potentially come into play. In other words, no one can say with 100% certainty either way what the court will do although we can argue the legal merits of the case all day long.

 

Whew! Your "Letter Of The Law" ambiguity understanding is well stated!!

JMHO

 

I believe Larry should offer to "free
of charge" re-slab the coin in a new
SEGS holder, having the original grade.

Nothing has changed except an opinion from a TPG, which I, and many others have established, may be changed upon re-submission.

The OP would still have the original coin to do whatever with, and it's believed damages wouldn't generally exist, or be difficult to prove.

The coin may "cross-over". Who knows?

JMHO

 

To be continued...

 

Is that a threat or a promise?