eBay The eBay Official eBay Thread eBay
19 19

1,953 posts in this topic

54,813 posts
On 2/7/2019 at 4:35 PM, serling1978 said:

Just curious about everyone's thoughts on seller responsibility when it comes to grading. A couple months ago I sold a raw asm14 and the potential buyer asked a bunch of questions about if it was restored and I answered completely honestly and said I bought it raw and with it being over 50 years old there was no way I could guarantee it wasn't restored. He ended up winning the auction and immediately sent it to be graded. In my mind I was a little concerned he might be immediately grading it to keep the return window open if it was restored. It turned out it got a good grade and was not restored (he was nice enough to message me back) but it just made me wonder, if you're selling a raw book would you accept a return if it came back restored?

Personally I feel like if a buyer gets the raw book from me in the mail and chooses to get it graded then at that point he owns it and had chosen to keep it and get his book graded. If on the other hand he gets it and with his own eyeballs says hey this looks restored then that is valid for a return. But in my mind if the buyer has it in hand and can't tell it's restored then it's not reasonable to think I should have known. If that makes sense.

I Know a lot of people here sell on eBay, so what are your policies and do you state the policy in the listing? 

You, the seller, are responsible. 

If you're not sure if something is restored or not...submit it yourself.

Getting a book graded...and, I fully believe the legal system will agree with me when and if they ever catch up in this area...is merely obtaining an appraisal. If you take a car you are planning to purchase to a mechanic to have it's condition appraised, the buyer isn't obligated to buy the car. Same with comic book grading: someone is seeking a professional, third party opinion.

It's why the idea of the slabbed book being a "package" is, and always has been, utter hogwash. "You cracked the book out! Now it's not what I sold you!" No, barring any changes to the actual book, you sold me a book with a condition appraisal attached to it. It is the book inside...and nothing but the book inside...that has any actual value.

Don't believe me....? Try and sell an empty slab on eBay...any empty slab...tell me how much you get for it. Try it with an empty slab that has a label for a 9.4 AF #15.

Besides....no one, not even CGC, can guarantee that something isn't restored. There have been, on occasion, books that went through the "restored - not restored" revolving door. They do very well...but they aren't perfect, and neither is anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
8 hours ago, serling1978 said:

If a buyer wants the seller to be responsible when a book is found to be restored does he also want the seller to be credited when the book grades higher than expected and is worth much more than the price paid? 

No.

Why?

Because grading is subjective.

Restoration, on the other hand, is not.

Restoration is either there or it is not...whether or not it is detected...and is not subject to interpretation. 

Grading, on the other hand, is, because you're interpreting how the flaws affect the overall physical preservation of the item, which is always a subjective analysis.

That doesn't mean aspects of restoration and how that affects the book's overall condition aren't subjective...they are...but whether or not restoration is present is not. It is either there or it is not.

"I think this a 9.0." "I think this is an 8.5." "I think this is a 9.2." Totally legitimate conclusions, because grading is subjective.

"This book has color touch." "This book does not have color touch." Both of those statements, outside of a Schrödinger experiment, cannot be true at the same time. It either does, or it does not. Same with things like "this book has a 1/4" color breaking crease on the bottom right corner of the front cover." How that crease affects the grade is subjective; that it exists is not.

And, of course, it is just as likely for a random book by a random seller to grade lower than the seller suggested, thereby making the book worth less than the price paid; in both cases, the buyer has no recourse, unless the seller failed to disclose material problems that would have an impact on that grade.

In other words...it's totally legitimate....though usually quite scummy....to say "book is in MINT condition! Only has a single 5" crease! Centerfold missing!" If those flaws are disclosed, the buyer can make his or her choice based on the information presented to them. The seller cannot say, however, that "book is in MINT condition!" and fail to disclose flaws that would substantially impact the item's condition. What does "substantially" mean...? Good question. I doubt you can make a claim where the buyer thinks a book is a 9.2, but the seller described it as 9.4. However, you could probably make a fair claim if the seller described it as 9.4, and it's a 5.5 on a good day. But if the book is in better condition than advertised? Sorry, seller, shouldn't have been so hard on the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts
14 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

You, the seller, are responsible. 

If you're not sure if something is restored or not...submit it yourself.

Getting a book graded...and, I fully believe the legal system will agree with me when and if they ever catch up in this area...is merely obtaining an appraisal. If you take a car you are planning to purchase to a mechanic to have it's condition appraised, the buyer isn't obligated to buy the car. Same with comic book grading: someone is seeking a professional, third party opinion.

It's why the idea of the slabbed book being a "package" is, and always has been, utter hogwash. "You cracked the book out! Now it's not what I sold you!" No, barring any changes to the actual book, you sold me a book with a condition appraisal attached to it. It is the book inside...and nothing but the book inside...that has any actual value.

Don't believe me....? Try and sell an empty slab on eBay...any empty slab...tell me how much you get for it. Try it with an empty slab that has a label for a 9.4 AF #15.

Besides....no one, not even CGC, can guarantee that something isn't restored. There have been, on occasion, books that went through the "restored - not restored" revolving door. They do very well...but they aren't perfect, and neither is anyone else.

I see and respect your points even though I disagree.  If I'm selling a raw book I'm selling as is. A raw ungraded comic book. I have no affiliation with any grading company or any way or obligation to uphold to their standards.  If I had the same expertise and tools at my disposal as they do then I would probably charge a lot more. If someone wants that type of guarantee then thats why already graded books are a good option. Maybe a new company will come out tomorrow that deems all books with a dog ear to be Grade A Bow Wow Worthless. If I'm selling a raw book it's not my responsibility to adhere to a companies standards that I am in no way affiliated with.  I think some buyers are incorrectly assuming that sellers have to uphold to professional grading company standards. But if a regular Joe seller isn't claiming his books are going to meet the specific standards of an independent company then it isn't reasonable to use that  companies standards to hold the seller responsible.

Am I playing a little bit of devil's advocate? Maybe. Am I somewhat drunk? Probably. But if a buyer is expecting a guarantee in relation to CGC standards, then they should buy something that has already been reviewed and verified by....CGC.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts

Restoration either exists or does not exist, entirely independently of any and all grading companies and their standards. Restoration, if present, is not there because CGC says so (aka, "their standards.") It is there because it is there. You are confusing objective observations with subjective opinions.

If a seller doesn't know if his or her books are restored or not, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Grading is subjective. The presence or absence of restoration is not. If a seller says "I don't know if this book is restored" and the buyer chooses to have its condition appraised by a reputable third party to make sure (and, sadly, at this point there is only one: CGC), and restoration is discovered, the buyer doesn't "own" the book because they chose to have it so appraised...and no court in the land would uphold that as a valid condition of sale.

Besides...there is no such condition as "as is" in an online purchase, where the buyer cannot inspect the item prior to purchase. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts
15 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No.

Why?

Because grading is subjective.

Restoration, on the other hand, is not.

Restoration is either there or it is not...whether or not it is detected...and is not subject to interpretation. 

Grading, on the other hand, is, because you're interpreting how the flaws affect the overall physical preservation of the item, which is always a subjective analysis.

That doesn't mean aspects of restoration and how that affects the book's overall condition aren't subjective...they are...but whether or not restoration is present is not. It is either there or it is not.

"I think this a 9.0." "I think this is an 8.5." "I think this is a 9.2." Totally legitimate conclusions, because grading is subjective.

"This book has color touch." "This book does not have color touch." Both of those statements, outside of a Schrödinger experiment, cannot be true at the same time. It either does, or it does not. Same with things like "this book has a 1/4" color breaking crease on the bottom right corner of the front cover." How that crease affects the grade is subjective; that it exists is not.

And, of course, it is just as likely for a random book by a random seller to grade lower than the seller suggested, thereby making the book worth less than the price paid; in both cases, the buyer has no recourse, unless the seller failed to disclose material problems that would have an impact on that grade.

In other words...it's totally legitimate....though usually quite scummy....to say "book is in MINT condition! Only has a single 5" crease! Centerfold missing!" If those flaws are disclosed, the buyer can make his or her choice based on the information presented to them. The seller cannot say, however, that "book is in MINT condition!" and fail to disclose flaws that would substantially impact the item's condition. What does "substantially" mean...? Good question. I doubt you can make a claim where the buyer thinks a book is a 9.2, but the seller described it as 9.4. However, you could probably make a fair claim if the seller described it as 9.4, and it's a 5.5 on a good day. But if the book is in better condition than advertised? Sorry, seller, shouldn't have been so hard on the book.

Again I do see you point. And it's well thought out. But that line of thinking is assuming the buyer and seller are agreeing that if the book is restored it can be returned. If the seller has no idea it's restored and the buyer gets it in hand and also has no idea it's restored then HE is now the owner who doesn't know it's restored. ( This is all assuming the seller isn't a scumbag who restored it himself or took it out of a purple label case. If that's the case I'm onboard and it's basically fraud). The seller doesn't continue to own the book indefinitely. In my mind the transfer of ownership happens once the buyer gets the book and decides to grade THEIR book. Renting someone else's book to see how it turns out isn't a reasonable expectation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts
2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Restoration either exists or does not exist, entirely independently of any and all grading companies and their standards. Restoration, if present, is not there because CGC says so (aka, "their standards.") It is there because it is there. You are confusing objective observations with subjective opinions.

If a seller doesn't know if his or her books are restored or not, that doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Grading is subjective. The presence or absence of restoration is not. If a seller says "I don't know if this book is restored" and the buyer chooses to have its condition appraised by a reputable third party to make sure (and, sadly, at this point there is only one: CGC), and restoration is discovered, the buyer doesn't "own" the book because they chose to have it so appraised...and no court in the land would uphold that as a valid condition of sale.

Besides...there is no such condition as "as is" in an online purchase, where the buyer cannot inspect the item prior to purchase. 

 

Yes restoration is black and white. But if a seller puts up a raw book for auction and the buyer never asks about restoration and the seller never says it is or isn't restored (because he doesn't know) then why would the seller expect a guarantee on something that they didn't negotiate when making the purchase? I think a guarantee on something like a missing ad page is a reasonable assumption because that is something clear to the naked eye.  And I agree that "as is" can't purely be based on the online transaction. Once the buyer gets the book in hand that is their prime chance to review the book in great detail and come to their own conclusion. I've said that from the beginning. If the buyer inspects the book and deems it restored then the seller should accept the return because it should reasonably have been caught and disclosed. But if the buyer can't tell either that it's restored then why blame the seller instead of blaming themself?  They had a chance to return the book and instead decided to get it graded. At that point they chose that it was an acceptable risk based on their own review and they now own the book.

 

Thats how I see it anyway, but what do I know. I admit it's somewhat gray though and emotions can come into play. Even if I felt the buyer was in the wrong I would probably feel bad  for him and still work something out. So yeah, it's complicated. Anyway It's been good debating with you, and I do mean that, but I shall now retire to bed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
20 minutes ago, serling1978 said:

Again I do see you point. And it's well thought out. But that line of thinking is assuming the buyer and seller are agreeing that if the book is restored it can be returned. If the seller has no idea it's restored and the buyer gets it in hand and also has no idea it's restored then HE is now the owner who doesn't know it's restored. ( This is all assuming the seller isn't a scumbag who restored it himself or took it out of a purple label case. If that's the case I'm onboard and it's basically fraud). The seller doesn't continue to own the book indefinitely. In my mind the transfer of ownership happens once the buyer gets the book and decides to grade THEIR book. Renting someone else's book to see how it turns out isn't a reasonable expectation.

It doesn't assume anything of the sort. What you describe happens every day, all the time: an independent, third party analysis of an item and its condition, which includes both objective observation and subjective interpretation, to determine where its level of physical preservation stands. No one said anything about "indefinitely." But a buyer has a reasonable amount of time to do their due diligence, which absolutely includes seeking an independent, third party opinion. Ignorance on the part of the seller doesn't absolve.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
Just now, serling1978 said:

Yes restoration is black and white. But if a seller puts up a raw book for auction and the buyer never asks about restoration and the seller never says it is or isn't restored (because he doesn't know) then why would the seller expect a guarantee on something that they didn't negotiate when making the purchase? I think a guarantee on something like a missing ad page is a reasonable assumption because that is something clear to the naked eye.  And I agree that "as is" can't purely be based on the online transaction. Once the buyer gets the book in hand that is their prime chance to review the book in great detail and come to their own conclusion. I've said that from the beginning. If the buyer inspects the book and deems it restored then the seller should accept the return because it should reasonably have been caught and disclosed. But if the buyer can't tell either that it's restored then why blame the seller instead of blaming themself?  They had a chance to return the book and instead decided to get it graded. At that point they chose that it was an acceptable risk based on their own review and they now own the book.

 

Thats how I see it anyway, but what do I know. I admit it's somewhat gray though and emotions can come into play. Even if I felt the buyer was in the wrong I would probably feel bad  for him and still work something out. So yeah, it's complicated. Anyway It's been good debating with you, and I do mean that, but I shall now retire to bed

Because it's not a guarantee, as I said before. What you think is a "reasonable assumption" has no bearing, because, as the seller, you bear the responsibility for making sure your item is accurately described, whether you are actually capable of doing so or not.

Why "blame the seller instead of themself"? Because the seller is not allowed to create a condition of sale that precludes a buyer from seeking an independent, third-party opinion as to the condition of the item in question. 

That's not how it works. Nothing gray about it. And if one's emotions come into play during a business transaction, one has no business being involved in such transactions. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts
3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It doesn't assume anything of the sort. What you describe happens every day, all the time: an independent, third party analysis of an item and its condition, which includes both objective observation and subjective interpretation, to determine where its level of physical preservation. No one said anything about "indefinitely." But a buyer has a reasonable amount of time to do their due diligence, which absolutely includes seeking an independent, third party opinion. Ignorance on the part of the seller doesn't absolve.

Ok final thought 😁

I agree that what your saying makes sense for something like an auto inspection or a home inspection where the potential buyer has the item inspected prior to buying. But I've never heard of anyone buying a house and then having it inspected and returning it.

Of course now someone will cite an example where this has happened 😂 but I still stand by never hearing of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
9 minutes ago, serling1978 said:

Ok final thought 😁

I agree that what your saying makes sense for something like an auto inspection or a home inspection where the potential buyer has the item inspected prior to buying. But I've never heard of anyone buying a house and then having it inspected and returning it.

Of course now someone will cite an example where this has happened 😂 but I still stand by never hearing of it

The misconception under which you are laboring is that the transaction is "done" just because the buyer received the item, made an inspection, and didn't notice anything themselves. If a buyer chooses to have the item independently inspected, you, the seller, can't create a condition of sale which precludes that...provided, of course, that the buyer acts in a reasonable time frame to do so. If the buyer chooses to do that...which they have the right to do...the transaction is not "over" until the inspection is complete and the buyer is satisfied.

From the Uniform Commercial Code U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 5. PERFORMANCE › § 2-513. Buyer's Right to Inspection of Goods:

(1) Unless otherwise agreed and subject to subsection (3), 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 seller is required or authorized to send the goods to the buyer, the inspection may be after their arrival.

Any commercial attorneys should feel free to correct me if I have misstated or misused the UCC.

You would have a very difficult time, I imagine, trying to convince a judge that having a comic book inspected by the only reputable appraisal service in the industry (CGC) is unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
On 2/7/2019 at 5:13 PM, Ride the Tiger said:

With all that said I never make any claim about restoration. Never have and never will.

I'm taking you at face value when I ask "so, if you saw color touch, and it was quite obviously color touch, you wouldn't say anything about it?"

If you opened up a book, and it looked like this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

or this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

 

You would say nothing, or say "I don't know if this has been restored or not"...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,456 posts

Anyone know why a seller would have the same exact item listed twice at the same time? Only differences I can see are the starting price and end time. Any insight is appreciated.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/*suite16*/m.html?item=233126420235&hash=item36476adf0b%3Ag%3A~pYAAOSwc9VcRjVg%3Ark%3A1%3Apf%3A0&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts

Some additional info on the UCC, found online:

"adoption of the UCC often varies from one U.S. jurisdiction to another. Sometimes this variation is due to alternative language found in the official UCC itself. At other times, adoption of different revisions to the official UCC contributes to further variation. Additionally, some jurisdictions deviate from the official UCC by tailoring the language to meet their unique needs and preferences. Lastly, even identical language adopted by any two U.S. jurisdictions may nonetheless be subject to different statutory interpretation by each jurisdiction's courts."

I have my opinions but as with anything I remain open to changing my perspective, considering the matter remains murky, which I am comfortable acknowledging. Personally I wouldn't begin to speculate on the difficulty of convincing a judge of anything. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,028 posts
7 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm taking you at face value when I ask "so, if you saw color touch, and it was quite obviously color touch, you wouldn't say anything about it?"

If you opened up a book, and it looked like this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

or this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

 

You would say nothing, or say "I don't know if this has been restored or not"...?

 

I would never own a book like that in the 1st place. I only collect high grade books and most purchases are made from sellers I've dealt with for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
1 minute ago, serling1978 said:

Some additional info on the UCC, found online:

"adoption of the UCC often varies from one U.S. jurisdiction to another. Sometimes this variation is due to alternative language found in the official UCC itself. At other times, adoption of different revisions to the official UCC contributes to further variation. Additionally, some jurisdictions deviate from the official UCC by tailoring the language to meet their unique needs and preferences. Lastly, even identical language adopted by any two U.S. jurisdictions may nonetheless be subject to different statutory interpretation by each jurisdiction's courts."

I have my opinions but as with anything I remain open to changing my perspective, considering the matter remains murky, which I am comfortable acknowledging. Personally I wouldn't begin to speculate on the difficulty of convincing a judge of anything. 

 

 

 

That's from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

Not that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong, but it ought not be considered as a primary source, for anything. And the above is not applicable to the particular topic being discussed, because the rights of a buyer are very well established. There's nothing murky about this.

Here's more information from the UCC:

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 6. BREACH, REPUDIATION AND EXCUSE › § 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.

"(1) 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

  • (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
  • (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them."

(emphasis added)

Yes, specific state law may vary, but buyers are not expected to be experts in all fields, and have a right to have items inspected by those who are..."in any reasonable manner", according to the language of the UCC.

As an explanation for why your "exclusion" does not work: a buyer can take a recently bought item to a convention where CGC is doing onsite grading. The buyer receives the book on the Wednesday before the convention, takes it to the convention, has it graded, discovers it is restored, and has the appraised book back in their hands by Sunday. They say nothing to you about having it graded by CGC (and they are not obligated to.) They merely inform you that they have discovered it is restored. According to your own terms, they would be able to return the book. 

Or, say they took the book to Richard Evans, of Bedrock City Comics, who is as much of an expert at detecting restoration as anybody in the industry. He informs the buyer that the book is restored. The buyer then informs you that they have discovered it is restored. 

It does not matter how the buyer finds out that it is restored...it only matters that it is. While it may not be reasonable for a buyer to submit a book under a Value tier, and wait 3-4 months for the grade, it's certainly reasonable to submit it under a standard or express tier...and the UCC provides that, while the buyer is responsible for the cost of said inspection, that cost may be shifted to the seller if the item does not conform to the terms of the contract (probably not applicable in your case, since you plead ignorance.)

Nolo has more information on this:

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

While I appreciate your passionate responses, the fact is, you're giving people bad information, that could cause them unnecessary grief were they to follow your opinion. A transaction doesn't become "final" merely because a buyer chooses to get an independent, third party opinion as to the item's condition, regardless of your stance. That's quite clear in the UCC and other applicable commercial law. Your opinion stands in stark contrast with long established consumer protection rights, and anyone reading that and thinking they could do the same would cause themselves problems that are easily avoided. 

In other words: getting an expert opinion, in a reasonable time frame, is the right of the buyer, and does not void their ability to reject an item, or revoke acceptance of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts
11 minutes ago, Ride the Tiger said:
8 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm taking you at face value when I ask "so, if you saw color touch, and it was quite obviously color touch, you wouldn't say anything about it?"

If you opened up a book, and it looked like this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

or this:

s-l1600.jpg

s-l1600.jpg

 

You would say nothing, or say "I don't know if this has been restored or not"...?

 

I would never own a book like that in the 1st place. I only collect high grade books and most purchases are made from sellers I've dealt with for years.

Ok, fair enough, but that doesn't answer the question.

Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone misses things. I have 9.8s that have restoration and are purple label. My question to you is, when you say you don't make claims about restoration, never have, and never will, does that include situations where you know, or discover, there is restoration? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108 posts
28 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

That's from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code

Not that Wikipedia is necessarily wrong, but it ought not be considered as a primary source, for anything. And the above is not applicable to the particular topic being discussed, because the rights of a buyer are very well established. There's nothing murky about this.

Here's more information from the UCC:

U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 6. BREACH, REPUDIATION AND EXCUSE › § 2-608. Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part.

"(1) 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

  • (a) on the reasonable assumption that its non-conformity would be cured and it has not been seasonably cured; or
  • (b) without discovery of such non-conformity if his acceptance was reasonably induced either by the difficulty of discovery before acceptance or by the seller's assurances.

(2) Revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects. It is not effective until the buyer notifies the seller of it.

(3) A buyer who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected them."

(emphasis added)

Yes, specific state law may vary, but buyers are not expected to be experts in all fields, and have a right to have items inspected by those who are..."in any reasonable manner", according to the language of the UCC.

As an explanation for why your "exclusion" does not work: a buyer can take a recently bought item to a convention where CGC is doing onsite grading. The buyer receives the book on the Wednesday before the convention, takes it to the convention, has it graded, discovers it is restored, and has the appraised book back in their hands by Sunday. They say nothing to you about having it graded by CGC (and they are not obligated to.) They merely inform you that they have discovered it is restored. According to your own terms, they would be able to return the book. 

Or, say they took the book to Richard Evans, of Bedrock City Comics, who is as much of an expert at detecting restoration as anybody in the industry. He informs the buyer that the book is restored. The buyer then informs you that they have discovered it is restored. 

It does not matter how the buyer finds out that it is restored...it only matters that it is. While it may not be reasonable for a buyer to submit a book under a Value tier, and wait 3-4 months for the grade, it's certainly reasonable to submit it under a standard or express tier...and the UCC provides that, while the buyer is responsible for the cost of said inspection, that cost may be shifted to the seller if the item does not conform to the terms of the contract (probably not applicable in your case, since you plead ignorance.)

Nolo has more information on this:

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

While I appreciate your passionate responses, the fact is, you're giving people bad information, that could cause them unnecessary grief were they to follow your opinion. A transaction doesn't become "final" merely because a buyer chooses to get an independent, third party opinion as to the item's condition, regardless of your stance. That's quite clear in the UCC and other applicable commercial law. Your opinion stands in stark contrast with long established consumer protection rights, and anyone reading that and thinking they could do the same would cause themselves problems that are easily avoided. 

In other words: getting an expert opinion, in a reasonable time frame, is the right of the buyer, and does not void their ability to reject an item, or revoke acceptance of it.

One last question. Are you secretly Matt Murdock?

I only gave my opinion. If we can't have dissenting opinions due to a fear that others will take it as fact and then suffer as a consequence, well then I guess there's nothing left to say.

 

Take care, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54,813 posts

On the matter of what constitutes "conformity" with respect to comic book (or other collectible) transactions on eBay...I don't believe that these matters have worked their way through the legal system, if they've even started, but it is my opinion...and I am not an attorney...that with respect to a seller's defense, they cannot plead ignorance as to an item they are selling and force a sale on an otherwise unwilling buyer.

For example: if a seller offers an "Amazing Spiderman #136" for sale on eBay...it is, again, my opinion that that constitutes an offer for an item that is A. wholly, or nearly wholly, complete, with nothing substantially missing from the book, as produced, aside from obvious and normal wear and tear, and B. without "permanent" alteration to it of any kind, in an attempt to improve its apparent condition (aka "restoration.")

"But, doesn't pressing alter its apparent condition?" - yes, but the key distinction there is that you're not adding to, or taking away, from the book. 

Pressing aside, a seller can't offer that ASM #136 if its Marvel Value Stamp is missing, without disclosure...because the book is no longer complete, and is missing a substantive part. What they are offering is PART of an ASM #136....granted, a good 97-98% of it....but it is still incomplete, and not as produced. That's why the whole "PGX X-Men #1" with the two pages missing issue was really not an issue for the buyer. Again, I don't have any case law (and maybe there is some) or statute to support this, this is just my opinion...but if a seller offers an "ASM #137" without qualification, it is a reasonable presumption that the issue is wholly, or nearly wholly, complete, with nothing missing that is not immediately obvious, and if anything IS missing...such as a clipped coupon, or a torn out page, or a centerfold, or the like...then you are no longer dealing with "Comic Book X #Y", but merely part of said comic, which then must be disclosed, or the buyer retains full right of rejection, regardless of the claims of any third party.

By offering any specific comic for sale on the internet without qualification, it is my opinion that it is reasonable to presume that it is complete, or nearly so, and free of alteration, and if either is discovered by the buyer not to be the case, non-conformity has been established, and the buyer can reject the item without question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,282 posts
9 hours ago, serling1978 said:

 Once the buyer gets the book in hand that is their prime chance to review the book in great detail and come to their own conclusion. I've said that from the beginning. If the buyer inspects the book and deems it restored then the seller should accept the return because it should reasonably have been caught and disclosed. But if the buyer can't tell either that it's restored then why blame the seller instead of blaming themself?  They had a chance to return the book and instead decided to get it graded. At that point they chose that it was an acceptable risk based on their own review and they now own the book.

You seem to be making the argument that if the buyer, without benefit of 3rd party appraisals, can’t determine for himself whether a raw book has restoration or not, he probably shouldn’t buy the book.

In fact, in your initial post, you seemed a bit dismayed that after asking questions about restoration and not getting a definitive answer from you, the buyer went ahead and won the book anyway. 

The problem with that argument is it can just as easily be turned on the seller. 

If you as a seller cannot determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that a book is unrestored and you’re unwilling to stand behind what you sell (within a reasonable timeframe of course) regardless of who makes the appraisal of whether a book is restored, then perhaps you shouldn’t be selling the book. 

The problem with your ‘submitting to a 3rd party grading company = final acceptance’ is that it assumes the ONLY reason a person would do so is for the subjective grade. 

It seems clear this buyer was concerned about non-subjective restoration and chose to avail himself of a 3rd party appraisal in that regard before determining ‘final acceptance’. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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
19 19