jcjames

No?

No, the OTHER "other guys"

There's always the "other guys".

Yes.

40 of the 1st 100 MA books

38 of the 1st 100 BA books

28 of the 1st 100 SA which seems very ASM-heavy.

46 of the 1st 100

It is SO simple, most people just won't believe how simple it is! Go into any comic book store and you'll see bins and bins of books on sale for a dollar each. Every single comic book store in the country has boxes and boxes of books for a dollar each. This proves the fact that dollar books sell because nobody would continue to restock inventory at that price if they never sell. I mean like, does Walmart have aisles and aisles of buggy whips and shoe horns? No, of course not. Why not? Answer: because nobody buys that. Why do comic book stores have so many bins of $1 books? Obviously because that's what people buy! So - heres what you do: 1. Buy a big comic book collection, the bigger the better, like 100 long boxes minimum, at an average cost of 20 cents per book. The bigger the collection the lower the price per book, that's the way it works. 2. Now take all the books that you bought for $0.20 each and sell them for a dollar each. 3. Profit!!! You're welcome. See ya' round the country club!

RMA, I know you were referencing my reply with your comments to Bababooey, and you implied that my position was that "I don't know" means "and neither can you" and you were rejecting that position (otherwise why specify that it doesn't mean that?). That's the strawman argument. In any case, I'm not convincing you of my position and you aren't convincing me of yours me so, we differ on it. But I will say this, if I sold a book that turned out to be restored and the buyer wanted some restitution for not knowing it was restored ahead of time (and me not knowing either), I would try working something out because that's what a good seller should do (though is not obligated to IMO but clearly is IYO). As I'm sure you would too. I'm curious though, how long of time do YOU think is "reasonable" time for what you call an "inspection" by the buyer? One week, one month, three months, one year? Where do you draw the line, (or grey smudge if it's not a clear line)?

Strawman argument. " I don't know" means, "I don't know". Words do get harder the more you twist them. I never said the buyer can't inspect it, but if it's advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored, which any reasonable person would conclude after being told " I don't know if it's restored", then later finding restoration confirms the description as advertised. The inspection for restoration is not addressing any defects, issues or problems that were not addressed prior to the sale.

You're arguing in circles so much you're actually arguing against yourself and contradicting yourself now - your first response to my statements were: "...the discount price argument doesn't hold water..." So if the seller upfront acknowledges he doesn't know if it's restored or not, which means, to any reasonable person, that it might be or might not be restored, and sells it at a discount price compared to a genuinely unrestored copy, that's either okay with you or not okay with you depending on the hour of the day it seems!

"I don't know" is the full truth to the question "Is it restored?" Nothing more is needed to be said or offered by the seller. There is no bad-faith, no failure of due-diligence, no misrepresentation, no hiding anything, nothing unreasonable on the part of the seller. From that statement forward, the sale being negotiated was for a book that might or might not be restored. The buyer was now knowingly buying uncertainty. That was the deal, that was the contract, that was the item as advertised... "a book that might or might not be restored", that uncertainty was being considered for purchase by the buyer. That the buyer didn't THEN clarify the terms of the contract and ask to make the sale conditional on the outcome of a resto-check is the buyer's fault, because that's exactly the terms the buyer wanted, but didn't ask for. You're saying the seller should have said "I don't know, so how about a discount?". That's absurd. The buyer has the obligation to know and understand the terms of the contract he is entering and to know what he is buying, which is now a book of uncertain restoration status, "a book that might or might not be restored". The seller was clearly selling a book that the buyer KNEW might be restored. After "inspection", the seller ended up with a book that was indeed restored.... exactly what he bargained and paid for. The seller is absolved, the buyer is guilty of being dumb. Next up... books that I thought were the first appearance of Wolverine - can I get a refund now?

btw... we get paid by the word here right?

There's a reason that places like Sotheby's and other collectible auction houses put it in writing in their contracts that if the owner's item turns out to be a forgery, they have the right to cancel the sale with the owner. WHY would Sotheby's or others (American auctions) need to put it in writing ahead of the sale if it's all such as simple as reading the UCC? Because they've been burned by caveat emptor. And that extra contract is needed even in the case of an OBVIOUS failure to deliver "perfect tenders" such as a forgery. If the buyer of a restored book accepts the terms of the sale (which do NOT include it being conditional on restoration-check results), then that's the buyer's fault. The buyer got the book " that precisely meets the terms of the contract" and that contract included the clear communication from the seller that it MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be restored. "Conformity" refers to the contract, not the item. And the contract has NO statement that the item is clearly restored or clearly unrestored. In fact, the communication from the seller saying "I don't know" is indeed part of that contract just as much as if the seller said "yes, it's restored" or "no, it's not restored". That's part of the contract condition "as advertised". If the book is advertised as "I don't know if it's restored"... and you buy the book anyway? You own it now. The "perfect tender" in this is a book that "might or might not be restored" according to the mutually-agreed upon contract. That is the point of the contract. In your example, the contract did not stipulate "unrestored ASM137", it said "ASM137". If someone had a IH181 and the prospective buyer said, "Is the MVS intact?" and the seller said "I don't know, I never opened it"..... and yet the buyer buys it anyway? Phf! Buyer did a dumb and bought a book that he knew ahead of time MIGHT be missing the MVS, and accepted those terms. It would be clearly unreasonable to expect the seller to accept a return if the buyer gets the book, opens it and finds it missing the MVS. Why would Sotheby's or other auction houses have to have additional boilerplate contracts written to protect themselves against forgeries if it was such a simple case of inspection-revealed flaws being enough to cancel the sale? You said " restoration certainly falls under non-conformity ". Says who? Where do you read this? Where are examples of this? Non-conformity of the contract would be if the inspection reveals that the description and pictures don't match the item received as advertised. That's not the case here. It was communicated and advertised as being in POSSIBLY restored condition (by the admission of the seller), and so restoration certainly falls under "being in possibly restored condition" and so it does in fact conform to the contract. Saying "I don't know if it's restored" is the same as saying "It might or might not be restored". So advertising and selling a book as "it might or might not be restored" is the contract. Coming back and saying "Hey, that book you said might be restored so I bought it from you anyway actually did come back as restored, so... you sent me something different that what you described".... that's nonsense!