Like I said, if someone made a $4,000 commission on a sale of a
$20,000 fake, then at the most that person is ethically obligated
to reimburse only the $4,000 he made on the deal, not the entire
$20,000 that was paid.
And if we table the ethical obligations for a moment, legally, a
court would be unlikely to order the repayment of even the $4,000
commission if the person could demonstrate that they knew nothing
about the poster being fake and sold it "as is" with no warranty.
James
both of these statements are incorrect
if a dealer middled a piece and was the recipient of the cash from
the buyer, then he has a lawful duty to return the full $20,000
unless....
if he was acting only as an agent and he was indemnified (aka
insured, or had a waiver) then he may at that point only be
responsible for the fee he collected and as an agent.
However, the general situation would be different:
"you're looking for a Bride of Haggard card and I know someone who
has one. Your price is $20,000"
though he may be acting as a middleman, the buyer has no direct
access to the original seller and the buyer's recourse is only with
the person who sold him the item.
Further, a lack of knowledge that the item is a forgery does not
shield anyone from the civil aspects of a sale, thought it may shield
the seller from criminal aspects
it's like when you got stopped on a road going 10 miles over the
speed limit: you were speeding and to say to a judge "I was ignorant
of the speed limit on that street" will not shield you from the fine
imposed. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in the eyes of the law.
federal and state laws do not allow a seller to claim ignorance. If a
card was sold "as an original" and later found to be fake, all laws
remain in effect. The seller is directly responsible to the buyer
regardless of his position as an honest person
If I buy a forgery and sell it, the buyer has legal recourse against
me. I in turn have legal recourse against the person who sold me the
item. That seller has legal recourse against their source etc all the
way down the line until you have the person who bought directly from
Haggard or Mendez and whom has a legal and criminal case against such
persons for fraud, conspiracy etc.
Ron Magid did one deal with Kerry Haggard and so he has a case
against Haggard. He did not sue Jaime because they would have to
prove Jaime had some knowledge that Magid was being defrauded.
However, in Gresham's case, because the fraud was over an extended
period of time, it can be presumed that Jaime may have known that Jim
was being defrauded and did not speak up, thereby ending the fraud
upon discovery and that's why Gresham is able to name Mendez in his lawsuit.
I expect that if anything I said was incorrect or misleading that
Sean will correct my text
Rich
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
