Nightmare situation with eBayer / PGX 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

11 minutes ago, entalmighty1 said:

The book sold for 20% under GPA, according to the buyer.  That's not a coincidence.

It did...?

Or did it actually sell for a substantial premium based on what it actually was?

An "incomplete" (GPA doesn't give the label number, so no lookup) 5.0 sold in March for $2,900. 

Assuming the OP is being completely above board, and representing the situation exactly as it occurred, the buyer paid a huge premium for this book, much, much more than the book was worth.

[The Lions Den]

6 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Lion, agreed, PGX is terrible but can you lay the blame on the seller here ? Honestly, if I were to sell a PGX graded book, I would probably just remove it from the slab and sell it raw. However, I just can't get behind the seller is at fault because he owned a PGX book and sold it. 

For me, the blame in this case rests squarely on the shoulders of PGX...

 

[Bomber-Bob]

11 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. The industry recognizes that grading is subjective, an opinion. Those who try to press claims for a book coming back a lower grade are going to lose, barring additional damage to the book at some point.

Pages missing? Restoration? That's not subject to opinion. Those things either exist or they do not. It's not subjective. 

"But what about the missed resto?" That resto was missed...it wasn't "well, it's not MUCH resto, so we'll pretend it's not there." (Golden Age exceptions noted and aside.)

"But...CGC has waffled in their resto opinion before!"

Yes, but that doesn't mean the resto wasn't (or was) actually there. The second someone applies a cutting implement to the edge of a comic who is NOT the printer, no matter how little they take off, no matter how difficult to detect, that book has been trimmed, and thus restored. The issue, then, is the reliable detection of resto, not whether or not it actually exists. 

Grading...how wear and tear and other flaws affect a book...is subject to opinion. Missing pages, resto....those things are black and white. They either exist or they don't. 

RMA, normally I would not even try to disagree with you because you would wear me down.   However, now that you have clarified your point better, I think I agree with you. You cannot challenge the grade, as that is subjective, but you can challenge the fact there was undetected resto. I'm still unclear on who you think is at fault here, buyer or seller ? I know it's PGX's fault but who should win this case if it's buyer vs seller ?

[mattn792]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure, to which I responded that the item had to be taken out of its holder to be inspected. Even the drones at eBay understand that much. 

Everyone, in every transaction, has rights and obligations. A seller's obligation is to provide what was claimed, regardless of the opinion of any third party as to that item's condition. Despite what a lot of people believe, no one is selling a sealed case. That case, without the comic inside, has no value in and of itself. The comic inside is where all...not just most, ALL...the value resides. How do I prove that? Take the book out of the case, and see how much that case is now worth.

A buyer's obligation is to inspect the item and make sure it is what was offered. You can't do that inside the case.

I think, if these ever made their way to court, that they would be treated just like any other third party appraisal in any other business: useful, but hardly binding.

"A seller's obligation is to provide what was claimed, regardless of the opinion of any third party as to that item's condition."

But in this case, barring some wording in the item's description in which the seller somehow conferred with PGX's assessment, did the seller not provide what was claimed e.g. a PGX certified 4.5 X-Men #1?  Assuming the seller simply listed it in that manner, the buyer's beef would ultimately appear to lie with PGX since the seller never took any steps to verify PGX's grade and simply advertised their (again, worthless) conclusion.

It's an interesting debate.  We could make even more complex by introducing the Signature Series into the conversation...

[Harley Troy]

30 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

But the buyer has the ability to inspect the leaf blower for himself before buying the item. He can "look under the hood", so to speak, and test it out to see if the blower is working. The seller woudn't put it in a clear plastic bag and say "this is in excellent condition!" and then say "no, you can't open the bag to inspect it for yourself." 

...and that's exactly what a buyer on eBay has the right to do: inspect the item in hand to make sure it is what the seller claims it is, which includes cracking that POS PGX slab and looking at the book.

I agree that anyone buying PGX slabs should do so with extreme caution...but...if we're talking about where responsibility lies, it always lies with the seller, the one making the proactive claim as to what the item is, and what general condition it is in (and remember...PICTURES are evidence of condition, too.)

So why then can't the seller simply state, "I make no guarantee of condition, buy at your own risk."

[The Lions Den]

[Bomber-Bob]

I think we ALL agree that PGX is terrible and this is all their fault. However, assuming the claim will be a buyer vs seller situation, who should win ? I feel for the buyer but he bought it knowing it was PGX.  This is indeed a Nightmare situation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

29 minutes ago, The Lions Den said:

For me, the blame in this case rests squarely on the shoulders of PGX...

 

Completely agreed, but...the proper chain of responsibility has to still be followed. I realize this can get very unwieldy, very quickly, but it's the only way the system will work. 

PGX isn't responsible for the value of the book...they didn't sell the book themselves...all they did was give their worthless opinion. 

It's not reasonable for anyone to come to PGX and say "this book was SUPPOSED to be worth $5,000, but because you screwed up, it's only worth $25!!" 

That's not PGX' responsibility, nor could anyone reasonably hold them to that...because that book never was actually worth $5,000 (or ANY amount the market said a properly graded example was at the time of the transaction.) That book was actually only worth the $25 (or whatever), even though it was assumed otherwise.

Whoever submitted that book to PGX is the one who bears the financial responsibility for the erroneous "valuation" of that book. If the OP's seller subbed it, the answer is simple: that seller never deserved that money in the first place, and owes it back to the buyer. If, however, the seller in turn was the buyer from somebody else, then THAT person was the party who was "unjustly enriched", as far back as it needs to go. 

And, of course, if it can be shown that the submitted KNEW the book was incomplete, and they subbed it to PGX hoping/knowing they'd miss it...granted, nearly impossible to prove...then they've committed fraud, and exposed themselves to a lot more than just the difference in value.

Edited August 8, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

12 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

RMA, normally I would not even try to disagree with you because you would wear me down.   However, now that you have clarified your point better, I think I agree with you. You cannot challenge the grade, as that is subjective, but you can challenge the fact there was undetected resto. I'm still unclear on who you think is at fault here, buyer or seller ? I know it's PGX's fault but who should win this case if it's buyer vs seller ?

Provided the situation is PRECISELY what the buyer claims, then the buyer should win, and the seller, if he/she is not the original submitter, should pursue a claim against whomever sold the book to him/her, until you get back to that original submitter.

Edited August 8, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[october]

38 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I've never had a dispute involving a cracked open slab, no.

Every time I've had a dispute, I've documented the ever living hell out of it, taking 15,000 or so pictures, to make sure that no one is in any position of saying "that's not the book I sent you!"

I can think of maybe once or twice someone tried to make that claim, but that was a very long time ago (maybe 2004, 2005?), and they were quickly shut down by the overwhelming amount of evidence I provided. The beauty of generally sloppy printing for decades: it's realllllly hard to find identical-looking copies in every respect before about the mid 90s. And once you have wear markers, that pretty much seals the deal.

I think it's gotten to the point where someone at eBay had to make the decision, but again, I provide so much evidence, I've yet to lose any case to a "that's not what I sent you!" claim.

...but, then again, I've bought maybe two PGX graded books, ever? And maybe 3 CBCS graded books?

I wonder if eBay would side with the buyer based on the "return the item in the condition received" rule. The case wasn't damaged in transit, it was opened by the buyer on purpose. Impossible to inspect the item without deslabbing, but then it's impossible to return the item as received.  

For what it's worth, I think the seller should honor the return, though the blame lies more with PGX assuming the seller wasn't the submitter and was unaware of the missing pages. Not convinced eBay would see it that way however, even though they should. 

[1Cool]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The seller is responsible for delivering what was advertised. "But they advertised a PGX graded book, and delivered that!" is the argument, right? Except that that doesn't create an automatic "as is" disclaimer for the seller. The seller is the one responsible to do his/her due diligence, and the implication is that the item is complete, at a minimum. If I sell a Batman #537 with a torn out page, and don't mention that, then I didn't sell a Batman #537...I sold an incomplete copy of Batman #537, or I sold parts of a Batman #537...not a Batman #537.

It wouldn't matter if it was PGX, CBCS, or even CGC...if the item isn't as described, whether by the seller or the third party grader, it's the seller's responsibility to the buyer. Just because a book is graded, it doesn't give any seller the ability to wash their hands of the responsibility. And then it becomes the responsibility of the seller to go back and seek compensation to the point where the problem started.

Think about this: you're selling your house. You have an HVAC company come in and install a new a/c unit. You advertise that as a selling point. You sell the house, and the buyer discovers that the a/c unit wasn't actually replaced. Who is the responsible party to the buyer, the former owner of the home, or the HVAC company? In that case, the former owner. It is then the former owner's responsibility to go after the HVAC company to make it right. 

Same with these scenarios. If the seller wasn't the one who slabbed it, it is his/her responsibility to seek compensation from the person who sold it to them, until you get back to PGX.

Commerce doesn't work if it's "just a gamble that didn't pay off." A buyer has a right to receive what they purchased.

You may have a case if you review the book and find the defect and quickly notify E-Bay and return the book.  But if you don't catch the issue and send it to another company (thus leaving your hands) do you still believe E-Bay would (or should) side with you if it came back restored?

[RockMyAmadeus]

13 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

e.g. a PGX certified 4.5 X-Men #1? 

No.

Here's why: while that item was, in fact, "PGX certified", and "4.5" is a reasonable grade, it was NOT an "X-Men #1"....because of the implication. It is an INCOMPLETE X-Men #1 (though that fact, of course, is unknowable by the seller if they didn't submit it.) 

There is a presumption that items that are sold must be complete and, if applicable, working order, unless otherwise stated, OR described as "as is." For example: I can't sell you a 1996 Toyota Tercel with one of the wheels missing, if I don't disclose that fact. I also don't get to not disclose if it's missing the back seats, for example, or the engine block isn't there. I would have to disclose all of that, or the buyer could come back and say it wasn't what was offered. Sure, it could be missing some cosmetic things, minor things that don't affect the driveability of the car...or, the radio might not work, or the a/c. 

Now...sellers don't get to use the "as is" clause unless the buyer or his/her agent has the ability to personally inspect it before purchase. 

So, when someone sells an X-Men #1, and it is implied that it is a complete copy, as originally issued, regardless of general wear and tear. It can even have minor, cosmetic interior small pieces missing, just like the radio not working on my Tercel. But, it is my experience that any pieces that invade ANY part of the art...even on ad pages, and especially if the missing piece contains narrative or dialogue!...almost always gets an "incomplete" designation, and rightfully so.

In this case, two full pages are missing. So, then, that book no longer can rightfully claim to be an "X-Men #1", because it isn't. It is an incomplete X-Men #1, or PART of an X-Men #1.

So, in this case, the title....a "PGX 4.5 X-Men #1"...is inaccurate, and not what the seller actually delivered. PGX? Yup. 4.5? Sure. X-Men #1...? There's the problem.

It IS a great debate. Lots of important issues being discussed.

[RockMyAmadeus]

22 minutes ago, october said:

I wonder if eBay would side with the buyer based on the "return the item in the condition received" rule. The case wasn't damaged in transit, it was opened by the buyer on purpose. Impossible to inspect the item without deslabbing, but then it's impossible to return the item as received.  

And, if it ever got that far, I imagine a judge would look at it and say "uh...you have to inspect the item. That's your obligation as a buyer." That opening the case means the item is "no longer as received" won't fly, precisely because of these issues.

The mentality....that the item is a "package" that is inviolate....cannot work, and will not stand a rigorous legal challenge, in my layman's opinion.

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[RockMyAmadeus]

16 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

You may have a case if you review the book and find the defect and quickly notify E-Bay and return the book.  But if you don't catch the issue and send it to another company (thus leaving your hands) do you still believe E-Bay would (or should) side with you if it came back restored?

That's a GREAT question, and obviously germane to this particular situation.

I believe that, provided the paper trail is fully documented, then yes, eBay should and would side with the buyer. And I mean, documented to the hilt, so that it's beyond ANY doubt.

But without such documentation...then no.

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, Harley Troy said:

So why then can't the seller simply state, "I make no guarantee of condition, buy at your own risk."

Because you can't do that on the internet.

[mattn792]

4 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No.

Here's why: while that item was, in fact, "PGX certified", and "4.5" is a reasonable grade, it was NOT an "X-Men #1"....because of the implication. It is an INCOMPLETE X-Men #1 (though that fact, of course, is unknowable by the seller if they didn't submit it.) 

I dig it.  This really is a nightmare scenario, especially because the chain of the wronged that you laid out previously is accurate in my book.  Can you imagine -- seller makes buyer whole, any prior sellers back all the way to the original submitter (assuming he is also the first seller) makes their buyers whole, leaving the original submitter and PGX to battle out who is ultimately liable and who owes who what.  Seller pleads ignorance and argues that PGX is incompetent, PGX counter-argues submitter knew the book was incomplete (and would have to admit to their own incompetence, which would be karmic).

That's probably what SHOULD happen, but it can't imagine it will go that far.

[Bomber-Bob]

For what it's worth, the PGX copy is easy to find on E-Bay and it was graded by PGX on 6/18. So, chances are the seller was the original submitter.

[Bomber-Bob]

I wonder if the seller is a Boardie ?  I hope the OP lets us know the outcome.

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

I dig it.  This really is a nightmare scenario, especially because the chain of the wronged that you laid out previously is accurate in my book.  Can you imagine -- seller makes buyer whole, any prior sellers back all the way to the original submitter (assuming he is also the first seller) makes their buyers whole, leaving the original submitter and PGX to battle out who is ultimately liable and who owes who what.  Seller pleads ignorance and argues that PGX is incompetent, PGX counter-argues submitter knew the book was incomplete (and would have to admit to their own incompetence, which would be karmic).

That's probably what SHOULD happen, but it can't imagine it will go that far.

All true, but the original submitter was the one with "title" to the book...not PGX. So, PGX should probably refund the fee they were paid for their worthless opinion, but beyond that, they can't be held responsible for any other amount (unless fraud can be proven!), because they didn't own the book, and have no say in what its value is. 

The book was what it was, and always was what it was...incomplete since the day those pages were torn out. The price, the money, for an unrestored "4.5" X-Men #1 was never legitimate, regardless of who knew what and when they knew it.

Ultimately, the original submitter...and it looks like the OP's seller is in this case, as Bob found out...is the one who has a reasonable right to fair market value for an incomplete lower mid-gradeish copy of X-Men #1, and nothing more (nor less!) and PGX bears no financial responsibility other than refunding their charge for their worthless opinion.

[Bomber-Bob]

Interesting tidbit, the OP claimed he paid 4,300 for the book. The item I found, and I do believe it is the same book, sold in an auction environment for 4,700 . I just like to see ALL the facts presented accurately. Puzzling.