Nightmare situation with eBayer / PGX 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, wombat said:

42 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again, not a lawyer...but I imagine "you should have KNOWN they were incompetent/fraudulent. Too bad!" is not a defense for shifting the burden of responsibility onto a buyer acting in good faith, or that it allows anyone to benefit at someone else's expense, regardless of who knew what and when.

It goes to common sense and protecting yourself. If a buyer isn't willing to put some effort into looking out for their own best interest then so be it. 

Again, not a lawyer....but I don't believe "goes to common sense" is a legitimate defense in court.

But seriously...it doesn't absolve anyone from responsibility for mistakes, either their own or of someone whose opinion they relied on, and/or bad faith actions.

"You should have known PGX was a scam!" isn't going to fly. Not saying due diligence is not necessary...but especially in this case, the buyer absolutely exercised it, by sending it in and having it appraised by another appraiser.

[wombat]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Again, not a lawyer....but I don't believe "goes to common sense" is a legitimate defense in court.

But seriously...it doesn't absolve anyone from responsibility for mistakes, either their own or of someone whose opinion they relied on, and/or bad faith actions.

"You should have known PGX was a scam!" isn't going to fly. Not saying due diligence is not necessary...but especially in this case, the buyer absolutely exercised it, by sending it in and having it appraised by another appraiser.

I never mentioned court or lawyers. I'm just talking about looking out for yourself. I also disagree with your assessment that the buyer exercised due diligence. They paid a lot of money to a shady company to begin with and then didn't document the aftermath.  

[jsilverjanet]

what would happen if he sent it back to PGX?

 

[wombat]

9 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

what would happen if he sent it back to PGX?

 

It would be an interesting experiment to send in books you know had very specific issues and see if they got caught. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

32 minutes ago, wombat said:

I also disagree with your assessment that the buyer exercised due diligence. They paid a lot of money to a shady company to begin with and then didn't document the aftermath.  

The seller is a shady company...? Because the buyer didn't buy the slab from PGX.

[wombat]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The seller is a shady company...? Because the buyer didn't buy the slab from PGX.

However you want to parse words. He bought a shady product. 

[Skeptic_Kepp]

1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

And...again...we're not talking about about grading, which is subjective. 

Ya'll gonna make Karate Kyle revisit this thread.

[SteppinRazor]

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

  5 hours ago, Real Elijah Snow said:

5 hours ago, Red84 said:

This had nothing to do with mitigating risk. He sent it to CGC because a CGC graded book garners a higher price. The fact that he immediately sent it to CGC shows that he knew PGX was garbage when he bought it at a discount. Caveat emptor. 

Disclaimer - this is not legal advice. 

Yes. 

 

5 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

No. Repeating it doesn't make it so. The motives of the buyer for getting it certified by CGC aren't relevant to the point, which was this: 

Not to be a grammar nazi, but you can't mitigate the risk after the purchase, you can only discover the result of the risk taking.  To mitigate the risk, the OP would have had to garner some more information that would offset some of the risk of PGX's incompetence prior to buying it.  For instance, insisting the seller sub to CGC, and only then paying for the comic + CGC fee.  I suspect that would not have gone over well.

Edited August 11, 2018 by SteppinRazor

[Mr. Lodge]

This is a thought provoking thread and I appreciate all the comprehensive views, expressed rationales, and Kav admonitions. 

Sorry if already addressed but would a reasonable seller-disclosed return period play into any seller responsibility for unknown (to seller) damage hidden within a slab?  If an X-Men #1 isn’t actually an X-Men #1 by virtue of 2 missing pages, it would seem that such a factual discovery should be knowable upon receipt and inspection. Further, it would seem that after some period of time buyer acceptance should be deemed to occur (whether or not book is cracked out) and the transaction be viewed as closed?  

But things are not always as they seem and I am not an attorney. These questions are meant to be general and not directed at OP’s specific facts. 

[grayzr]

There are so many horror stories like this regarding PGX im stunned they stay in business. 

[NoMan]

I wish PGX had a forum. That wold be the bomb. 

[mackenzie999]

10 hours ago, Mr. Lodge said:

a reasonable seller-disclosed return period

The problem with this is, what constitutes reasonable? Books can languish in the CGC system for months, and it’s not unusual for people to move books because they need access to the funds right away.

I sell you my XM1 because it’s the only way I can afford a book currently at auction. I either skip the auction due to waiting period (which kills my reason for selling in the first place), or I roll the dice, buy my book and find out later that I am on the hook for a pricy return.

I think the real solution to this is that there isn’t any solution, but the reward for common sense and due diligence is that you can avoid these headaches. 

After 18 or so pages of well considered debate, I think Kav’s single sentence is the wisest piece of information in this whole thread.

[mattn792]

21 hours ago, woowoo said:

 Do you have any idea how many Hulk 3's and  that would cost 

There's your problem -- you put Coca Cola in your Jack Daniel's.

[woowoo]

4 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

21 hours ago, woowoo said:

 Do you have any idea how many Hulk 3's and  that would cost 

There's your problem -- you put Coca Cola in your Jack Daniel's.

[mrwoogieman]

The buyer didn't need CGC to tell him two pages were missing. All he needed to do was take the book out of the PGX slab and inspect it. If the buyer can't tell two pages are missing after inspecting, the buyer shouldn't be dropping multi-thousands on such items.

[DavidTheDavid]

2 hours ago, mackenzie999 said:

The problem with this is, what constitutes reasonable? Books can languish in the CGC system for months, and it’s not unusual for people to move books because they need access to the funds right away.

I sell you my XM1 because it’s the only way I can afford a book currently at auction. I either skip the auction due to waiting period (which kills my reason for selling in the first place), or I roll the dice, buy my book and find out later that I am on the hook for a pricy return.

I think the real solution to this is that there isn’t any solution, but the reward for common sense and due diligence is that you can avoid these headaches. 

After 18 or so pages of well considered debate, I think Kav’s single sentence is the wisest piece of information in this whole thread.

People talk about comics like they're liquid assets. They are illiquid.

[thehumantorch]

1 hour ago, mrwoogieman said:

The buyer didn't need CGC to tell him two pages were missing. All he needed to do was take the book out of the PGX slab and inspect it. If the buyer can't tell two pages are missing after inspecting, the buyer shouldn't be dropping multi-thousands on such items.

Buyer didn't open the slab believing it was safer to ship the book in the PGX case.

[woowoo]

11 minutes ago, thehumantorch said:

Buyer didn't open the slab believing it was safer to ship the book in the PGX case.

 The seller or person who sent book to PGX should have counted the pages and looked thru the book before he sent in...………… I have heard that PGX fired all there people and made it a family package and the family he hired has No comic Experience  Just what I read on the boards 4 months ago or so.

[mrwoogieman]

1 hour ago, thehumantorch said:

3 hours ago, mrwoogieman said:

The buyer didn't need CGC to tell him two pages were missing. All he needed to do was take the book out of the PGX slab and inspect it. If the buyer can't tell two pages are missing after inspecting, the buyer shouldn't be dropping multi-thousands on such items.

Buyer didn't open the slab believing it was safer to ship the book in the PGX case.

The buyer could've thought or done a million different things, who cares? Bottom line is - buyer bought something and then didn't make sure he got what he paid for.

[Lazyboy]

9 minutes ago, mrwoogieman said:

2 hours ago, thehumantorch said:

3 hours ago, mrwoogieman said:

The buyer didn't need CGC to tell him two pages were missing. All he needed to do was take the book out of the PGX slab and inspect it. If the buyer can't tell two pages are missing after inspecting, the buyer shouldn't be dropping multi-thousands on such items.

Buyer didn't open the slab believing it was safer to ship the book in the PGX case.

The buyer could've thought or done a million different things, who cares? Bottom line is - buyer bought something and then didn't make sure he got what he paid for.

Of course he did. CGC didn't need to be involved, but they are at least as capable (to be very polite to the OP) of assessing the comic as is the OP.