• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

eBay The eBay Official eBay Thread eBay
32 32

4,124 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, the blob said:

A well written "as is" disclaimer ought to be able to deal with whether there are any warranties, implied or explicit, re: restoration. Do many sellers do this? No.

Sure...provided the buyer's right to inspect...which is expressly described in the UCC...is maintained.

The issue isn't whether someone can sell "as is", even online...they certainly can...but a buyer still has the right to inspect. 

A seller can't say "I'm selling this "as is", so I'm denying you the right to inspect it."  Such a move would, I imagine, void almost any contract as, as I understand it, "unconscionable", as it would be an open invitation for fraud.

That said, I can see a warranty regarding restoration reading something like "I am not responsible for any restoration that may or may not be present on this book", and, if CGC missed it...which, while excessively rare, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility...then the seller would be off the hook at that point.

Otherwise, once the restoration is discovered, regardless of by whom, within a reasonable amount of time, the buyer reserves the right to reject/revoke acceptance of the book. You can't force a sale with "as is." You can only limit liability after the fact, as I understand it.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"right to inspect" hm does not mean "right to results".

If a buyer wants to buy an unappraised book, at unappraised prices, then get it appraised... and then expect a refund if the appraisal results doesn't favor him. Umm... that's why CGC books command higher prices, duh! Some resto is easy to spot, some requires special skills, experience or tools. Why would the average seller be on the hook for honestly not knowing if there is a slight color-touch, married cover, or staple replaced?

If the buyer wants a "virtually-guaranteed" unrestored book - then the buyer should buy a book that is professionally-designated as unrestored. OR... ask for a bunch more pictures from the seller... OR ask for the sale be conditional on it coming back unrestored.... OR pass on the sale. 

But if a buyer asks the seller, "Is it restored" and the seller honestly answers, "I don't know", and then the buyer proceeds to accept the terms of the sale WHICH INCLUDE not knowing if it's restored, then the seller has bought a book that might be restored and has accepted those terms.

It is not reasonable (very important legal concept) for the average seller to always know if a book is restored, nor is it dishonest for the seller to say "I don't know" if that is truly the case. The seller is buying the "I don't know" at a discount-price rather than the CGC-inspected premium-priced book.

Bottomline, The buyer clearly has the right to inspect it to see if it is or is not as-advertised, but if the buyer accepts the terms of the sale, including the "I don't know if it's restored, so that's why it costs less than a professionally-designated unrestored book" then the buyer has knowingly bought a "possibly-restored" book. 

That's why CGC exists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jcjames said:

"right to inspect" hm does not mean "right to results".

If a buyer wants to buy an unappraised book, at unappraised prices, then get it appraised... and then expect a refund if the appraisal results doesn't favor him. Umm... that's why CGC books command higher prices, duh! Some resto is easy to spot, some requires special skills, experience or tools. Why would the average seller be on the hook for honestly not knowing if there is a slight color-touch, married cover, or staple replaced?

If the buyer wants a "virtually-guaranteed" unrestored book - then the buyer should buy a book that is professionally-designated as unrestored. OR... ask for a bunch more pictures from the seller... OR ask for the sale be conditional on it coming back unrestored.... OR pass on the sale. 

But if a buyer asks the seller, "Is it restored" and the seller honestly answers, "I don't know", and then the buyer proceeds to accept the terms of the sale WHICH INCLUDE not knowing if it's restored, then the seller has bought a book that might be restored and has accepted those terms.

It is not reasonable (very important legal concept) for the average seller to always know if a book is restored, nor is it dishonest for the seller to say "I don't know" if that is truly the case. The seller is buying the "I don't know" at a discount-price rather than the CGC-inspected premium-priced book.

Bottomline, The buyer clearly has the right to inspect it to see if it is or is not as-advertised, but if the buyer accepts the terms of the sale, including the "I don't know if it's restored, so that's why it costs less than a professionally-designated unrestored book" then the buyer has knowingly bought a "possibly-restored" book. 

That's why CGC exists.

 

 

As explained previously, the "discount price" argument doesn't hold water. 

"Right to inspect" means that the buyer also has the right to reject; otherwise, the right to inspect has no meaning. And the point of the inspection...totally irrespective of what the seller does or does not know...is to determine if the item is acceptable to the buyer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

As explained previously, the "discount price" argument doesn't hold water. 

"Right to inspect" means that the buyer also has the right to reject; otherwise, the right to inspect has no meaning. And the point of the inspection...totally irrespective of what the seller does or does not know...is to determine if the item is acceptable to the buyer.

 

No right is absolute. One does not (should not) have the right to reject for any and all reasons, including unreasonable reasons (unless the seller is Walmart!).

Examples of reasonable rejections:

* You said it was complete but failed to disclose the clearly and obviously-missing centerfold.

* You sent me a different book than the picture showed.

* The book was damaged in transit and was not as originally advertised.

Examples of unreasonable rejections:

* You didn't say it had color touch that was only visible under black-light inspection with a loupe (even though I never asked for that inspection before agreeing to the sale).

* You didn't say it had any restoration, only that you didn't know if it did or not which I accepted as the terms of the sale.

* I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally-designated as unrestored, but now that I have it I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance.

* I changed my mind because, well, none of your business.

 

ETA: There's no getting around the fact that the buyer bought the book KNOWING that it might be restored, and ACCEPTED the terms of the sale as evidenced by the seller paying for it AND not making the sale conditional on later restoration-inspection results.

The seller provided the book "as-advertised" to the buyer and the buyer accepted it "as-advertised".

 

Edited by jcjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jcjames said:

No right is absolute. One does not (should not) have the right to reject for any and all reasons,

Not in dispute. The legal argument is "does not conform to the contract." 

51 minutes ago, jcjames said:

including unreasonable reasons.

Unreasonable according to whom?

51 minutes ago, jcjames said:

Examples of unreasonable rejections:

* You didn't say it had color touch that was only visible under black-light inspection with a loupe (even though I never asked for that inspection before agreeing to the sale).

* You didn't say it had any restoration, only that you didn't know if it did or not which I accepted as the terms of the sale.

* I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally-designated as unrestored, but now that I have it I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance.

All of those presuppose that a buyer has forfeited his right to inspection prior to receipt. You don't forfeit your right to inspect by merely "agreeing to the sale." Those are "unreasonable rejections" according to you...but you will face a gargantuan task trying to convince the comic buying community of that.

Regardless, as I explained before, a buyer has the right to inspection AND the right to rejection. A reasonable argument can be made that restoration...of any kind...means that the item is not, therefore, original, and substantively not, therefore, as described, and does not conform to the contract. And, according to the UCC, goods must conform perfectly...not just substantially, as in other contracts...to the specifications of the seller.

"For contracts for the sale of goods, however, the UCC requires "perfect tender” by the seller. Tender means, in essence, the delivery of goods to the buyer, and perfect tender means delivering goods that precisely meet the terms of the contract. According to the UCC, if the goods as tendered “fail in any respect to conform to the contract,” the buyer has various options, including rejecting the goods."

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sellers-performance-under-the-ucc.html

"I don't know" isn't absolution. It does not matter whether the seller said so or not: if the inspection reveals non-conformity, the buyer has the right to reject. If you offer me an Amazing Spiderman #137, you are required to deliver an original Amazing Spiderman #137...not one that has been deliberately altered from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is.

Your last statement... "I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally-designated (sic) as unrestored, but now that I have it I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance" is like a buyer saying to a home seller "I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally designated as mold-free, but now that it has been I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance." That is the point of inspection: to discover that which is not readily noticeable to the layman's eye.

If a buyer cannot reject for non-conformity...and restoration certainly falls under non-conformity...then "right to inspect" has no meaning. Accepting that a seller "does not know" whether there is restoration or not does not constitute the buyer forfeiting the right to inspect for him or herself and reject for non-conformity. On the contrary, it means the buyer has even more cause to do his or her due diligence to determine the actual condition of the book.

Again: the "discount price" argument holds absolutely no water, for various reasons. The only scenario in which the "discount price" argument would work is if that specific item was discounted itself from the initial asking price to account for the potential risk of the presence of restoration. Otherwise, no, it is not true that all "CGC" graded books sell for more than their raw counterparts, and prices are arrived at using factors totally unrelated to whether or not restoration may, or may not, exist.

51 minutes ago, jcjames said:

* I changed my mind because, well, none of your business.

Not in dispute with regard to eBay transactions, which does not (generally) allow a buyer to list "changed my mind" as an enforceable reason to reject a sale.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

 

Edited by jcjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jcjames said:

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 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!

 

 

 

Says me. Says the hobby. Says CGC. Says almost every major dealer. Restoration is a deliberate attempt to alter the item from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is. The item is no longer original. Therefore, there is no need to "stipulate" to an "unrestored" ASM #137. It can be assumed to be original, unless otherwise stated.

"I don't know" is not absolution, and does not mean the buyer forfeits the right to inspection AND rejection. The acceptance of the "terms of the sale" does not mean the buyer forfeits the right to inspection and rejection, nor does it create such a condition.

The spelling out of terms by auction houses does not mean those terms don't already exist. Forgeries are specifically made to fool, which...again, by the terms in the UCC...fall under the "difficulty of discovery" clause in section 2-608. Restoration is not necessarily done to fool. Forgery always is. Restoration is not a crime. Forgery always is. Your analogy doesn't work.

As for the hypothetical missing MVS...again, the UCC provides for "difficulty of discovery." As you, yourself, stated earlier: "Some resto...requires special skills, experience or tools." Spotting a missing MVS is always straightforward and obvious. Detecting restoration is not. Still...if a seller does not know if the MVS is missing, that doesn't absolve him or her of responsibility if it is. "I don't know" is not absolution, and does not remove the right of the buyer to inspection and rejection.

"Conformity refers to the contract and not the item"...? No. You are incorrect. From the UCC, section 2-608: "The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it"..."non-conformity" here refers directly and specifically to the goods in question. The goods must conform to the contract. 

Coming back and saying "hey, that book you said might be restored" (actually, you're changing your argument, from "might or might not be" to simply "might be", which is different, and in this case, those precise words matter, but this should suffice to point that discrepancy out) "so I bought it from you anyway actually did come back as restored, so you sent me something different that (sic) what you described" is not only perfectly reasonable, it's prima facie non-conformity. The seller claimed he or she didn't know. The buyer...doing his due diligence...found out for sure. "Yes, it is, in fact, restored."

"I don't know" does not absolve the seller from responsibility. The ONLY acceptable solution the seller had was to say "I don't know if the book is restored or not. If it turns out to be restored, I will offer you X discount" OR "I don't know if the book is restored or not. Because I don't know, I will sell it to you for X discount." If the buyer agreed, at that point, the buyer would assume the risk of restoration, in consideration of that discount.

Otherwise...no, the seller doesn't get to say "I don't know, and you agreed to 'I don't know', so too bad."

The buyer does not forfeit the right to inspection, nor is there an implicit or explicit "acceptance" of any good, based on the seller saying "I don't know." In fact, "I don't know" places even more emphasis on the need for the buyer to do an inspection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason these things are codified the way they are is so that sellers cannot claim ignorance and defraud buyers. 

The burden of accurately describing an item for sale is on the seller. The seller can sell an item "as is"...but they must also allow the item to be inspected by the buyer prior to purchase OR acceptance (which are two different things.)

If a buyer didn't have the right of inspection upon receipt, any seller could knowingly sell anything they wanted, and claim "I don't know...and I told you I didn't know, and you accepted that, so too bad, you're stuck with it, suckah!" And how are you going to prove that the seller knew...? (You're not, in nearly all cases.)

No. That's not how the law works. The law is designed to protect both parties in the transaction, which means that the seller can say "I don't know"...but the buyer always maintains the right to inspect AND reject if that's the case. A seller doesn't get to hide behind "Well, I TOLD you I didn't know, so what did you expect??" All any seller would have to say is "I don't know" to unload all sorts of garbage on all sorts of unsuspecting buyers, and those buyers would have no recourse because they "accepted" that the seller didn't know...?

The idea that a seller saying "I don't know" (aka, "as is") means the buyer forfeits his right to inspect is obviously not a valid one, nor does it create automatic acceptance on the part of the buyer of whatever may show up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

"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.

Correct.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

There is no bad-faith, no failure of due-diligence, no misrepresentation, no hiding anything, nothing unreasonable on the part of the seller.

Correct.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

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.

"Uncertainty" does not relieve the seller of any responsibility. "Uncertainty" doesn't mean the buyer forfeits his right to inspection.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

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. 

"I don't know" is not a description of the item. It is a description of the (potential) state of mind of the seller. "I don't know" is not something that can be bought and sold, nor is it a quality of an item. Good try, though! A novel approach, at least!

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

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. 

The buyer does not forfeit his right to inspection of the item upon receipt merely because he did not state that right upfront, regardless of what the seller (or you) may believe. Sales of goods are ALWAYS...per the Uniform Commercial Code...conditional on the acceptance of the buyer following an inspection for conformity. Despite your claims, restoration is, in fact, non-conformity. Again: Restoration is a deliberate attempt to alter the item from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is. The item is no longer original.

Here's some relevant language from the UCC:

"The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it"

Does restoration substantially impair the value of a comic? I would suggest it does.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

You're saying the seller should have said "I don't know, so how about a discount?".

Incorrect. I'm not saying the seller should have said anything. I'm saying the only time a seller could say "I don't know" and not face potential liability is to offer the buyer a discount off the selling price to which the buyer will agree; usually amounting to the loss in value if the item does, in fact, have the suspected issues, which is a fairly common practice.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

That's absurd.

That's not only not absurd, it's fairly common practice in situations where the seller is genuinely unsure of what he is selling.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

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".

"I don't know" is an acknowledgement of a lack of information. The way a buyer "knows what he is buying" is to exercise his right to inspect when he receives the item. The item cannot be BOTH restored AND unrestored; therefore, "as is" sales, which is what your position boils down to, do not preclude a buyer exercising his right to inspect. The buyer does not assume the risk of the seller's uncertainty as a condition of sale, nor as a means of forfeiting his right to inspect, and the seller cannot disclaim all responsibility by claiming ignorance. The seller admits to a lack of knowledge, and the buyer acknowledges said lack of knowledge; nothing more, and nothing less, which makes the exercise of the buyer's right to inspect all the more vital.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

The seller was clearly selling a book that the buyer KNEW might be restored.

And the seller was also clearly selling a book that the buyer KNEW might not be restored. So? The buyer doesn't assume the risk of the seller's uncertainty, simply because the seller asserts his uncertainty. Now THAT would be absurd.

Saying someone KNOWS an item might be something is meaningless, because that can be applied to anything. After all...every single raw book that exists you KNOW might be restored. That's a completely true statement that has no actual meaning. Does that therefore mean that you assume the risk, as a buyer, for every single book for which a seller claims ignorance? 

You can see how that argument quickly falls apart. The operative part here is that neither the buyer nor the seller actually knew if it was restored or was not restored...hence, the need for inspection upon receipt.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

After "inspection", the seller ended up with a book that was indeed restored.... exactly what he bargained and paid for.

Why do you put "inspection" in quotation marks, as if you are suggesting that the buyer doesn't have that right?

As for your claim, the reverse is also true. Had the buyer (not seller) ended up with a book that was indeed UNrestored...he also would have received exactly what he bargained and paid for. And since either statement can be true, and are both equally likely outcomes in this scenario, your logic...that by doing so, the buyer assumed the risk of restoration being present and forfeited his right to inspect...does not follow.

4 hours ago, jcjames said:

The seller is absolved, the buyer is guilty of being dumb.

No, and no, for the reasons stated above.

 

 

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"where goods are tendered or delivered or identified to the contract for sale, the buyer has a right before payment or acceptance to inspect them at any reasonable place and time and in any reasonable manner. When the selleris required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-513

Edited by kav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Incorrect. I'm not saying the seller should have said anything. I'm saying the only time a seller could say "I don't know" and not face potential liability is to offer the buyer a discount off the selling price to which the buyer will agree; usually amounting to the loss in value if the item does, in fact, have the suspected issues, which is a fairly common practice.

Based on my skimming aren't you arguing against the idea that selling an item "as is" implies the agreed upon price already has the discount built in for the suspicion/probability.  (shrug)  

In my mind, 'as is' means as it sits...knowingly offering something restored as an 'as is' item is a misrepresentation.  I don't think I'd ever buy or recommend anyone else buy something 'as is' because I think most people would believe "as is" means the seller is protected even if it's a restored item.   Generally, I feel restoration that is detected by a buyer should always be returnable and I think anyone looking for an "I'm going to CGC this" guarantee should confirm that when buying and establish a timeline.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
32 32