James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

No kudos to PSA for trying to pass the buck. Only after seeing the backlash, did they honor the lifetime guarantee.

JSA, not PSA.

I agree with Chris that it's good that Spence did the right thing. I think Eric took the fight public too quickly to fairly say that it was merely a result of negative publicity that drove his decision. I give Spence the benefit of the doubt. I also don't blame JSA's service representative, as they probably aren't privy to what items Spence sold during his lifetime.

I'm glad things worked out and Eric and Spence were able to come to an amicable solution.

[camarokids]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

UPDATE: Just had a very good conversation with Jimmy Spence who agreed to honor his lifetime guarantee & refund my money. Thank you Jimmy.

No kudos to PSA for trying to pass the buck. Only after seeing the backlash, did they honor the lifetime guarantee.

[ChrisCavalier]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

UPDATE: Just had a very good conversation with Jimmy Spence who agreed to honor his lifetime guarantee & refund my money. Thank you Jimmy.

Glad to hear it Eric. Kudos also to Jimmy for honoring the guarantee.

-Chris

[Eric]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

UPDATE: Just had a very good conversation with Jimmy Spence who agreed to honor his lifetime guarantee & refund my money. Thank you Jimmy.

[3arod13]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Yes and yes. Let's expand your example a bit.

You buy a PSA 10 ARod bat from me on eBay for $400. You turn around and sell the bat for $1200 a year later. Somehow the buyer proves the bat isn't authentic. (I'm not sure how, but it's your example.) If the buyer asks you for a refund, you would need to refund the buyer $1200. I would be liable to you for $400 (and maybe for an additional court-determined interest rate, if you chose to sue me). It would be lunacy for me to be liable to your buyer for $1200, since I had no role in that transaction.

Now let's push the transaction even further back. I purchased the bat from someone for $1700 when ARod stuff was hot, thinking I was getting a rare piece of history. You've just informed me that I had made a fraudulent purchase. I think I'd then need to sue that seller, since they likely wouldn't be happy being asked to refund me $1700 six years after the fact.

My point is that it seems more responsible for each individual to have liability in the transaction they were involved in. Otherwise, the final owner could be told by everyone in the chain of custody "Go ask the next guy." It seems simpler to deal with the person you purchased from.

The primary reason that I asked if Eric had contacted Spence was the seeming lack of integrity of the middle person. Eric did try to get his money back from the person he bought the item from, but they blamed Spence. I think that was wrong. Even if Spence is ultimately liable for the item, I think his liability is limited to the original transaction.

I do understand your point about the authority with the LOA, though.

Now, returning to the GU10 bat, what if it were changed a little?

Say it's 2035 and someone submits a bat to PSA that was sold to me by someone else who purchased the bat from JT Sports. Between my owning the bat and the current submitter, the bat has changed hands seven times, and the image on the JT Sports LOA is pretty trashed up. PSA says the bat is no good, as some evidence came to surface in 2027 that all bats from that player were stolen from his locker on the first day of the season. He had never mentioned it before, since he didn't think anyone would care. So, with new evidence, the bat is clearly no good. I'm sure Taube would tell the original buyer that he found out the bat is no good, but the buyer says he no longer has it.

Now, the current owner of the bat is told by PSA's bat grading division that has Taube as CEO that the bat is no good. I couldn't really see holding JT liable for the current value of the bat. I could only see him being liable to the original purchaser for whatever that price was, again, plus some inflation adjustment.

First, thanks for your comments. You always spend a lot of time and thought in your posts, and it's much appreciated and educational.

Your comment: You buy a PSA 10 ARod bat from me on eBay for $400. You turn around and sell the bat for $1200 a year later. Somehow the buyer proves the bat isn't authentic. (I'm not sure how, but it's your example.)

Response: Same way I found out my Rawlings bat wasn't an authentic GU HR #15 bat; he used a Lousiville Slugger not a Rawlings. Authenticated by the player and multiple sources.

These situations are all very messy! And trying to go back to each source, many years later, and expecting them to give you your money back, the chances aren't that good. Especially if your talking about an item that sold in the thousands.

Again, thanks!

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

So let me ask this. You have a PSA 10 graded bat that you sell to me on ebay. I then turn around and sell it ebay. My buyer later proves that the bat isn't authentic game used. I'm obligated to refund the final buyer? Then I have to go after you for a refund?

Yes and yes. Let's expand your example a bit.

You buy a PSA 10 ARod bat from me on eBay for $400. You turn around and sell the bat for $1200 a year later. Somehow the buyer proves the bat isn't authentic. (I'm not sure how, but it's your example.) If the buyer asks you for a refund, you would need to refund the buyer $1200. I would be liable to you for $400 (and maybe for an additional court-determined interest rate, if you chose to sue me). It would be lunacy for me to be liable to your buyer for $1200, since I had no role in that transaction.

Now let's push the transaction even further back. I purchased the bat from someone for $1700 when ARod stuff was hot, thinking I was getting a rare piece of history. You've just informed me that I had made a fraudulent purchase. I think I'd then need to sue that seller, since they likely wouldn't be happy being asked to refund me $1700 six years after the fact.

My point is that it seems more responsible for each individual to have liability in the transaction they were involved in. Otherwise, the final owner could be told by everyone in the chain of custody "Go ask the next guy." It seems simpler to deal with the person you purchased from.

The primary reason that I asked if Eric had contacted Spence was the seeming lack of integrity of the middle person. Eric did try to get his money back from the person he bought the item from, but they blamed Spence. I think that was wrong. Even if Spence is ultimately liable for the item, I think his liability is limited to the original transaction.

I do understand your point about the authority with the LOA, though.

Now, returning to the GU10 bat, what if it were changed a little?

Say it's 2035 and someone submits a bat to PSA that was sold to me by someone else who purchased the bat from JT Sports. Between my owning the bat and the current submitter, the bat has changed hands seven times, and the image on the JT Sports LOA is pretty trashed up. PSA says the bat is no good, as some evidence came to surface in 2027 that all bats from that player were stolen from his locker on the first day of the season. He had never mentioned it before, since he didn't think anyone would care. So, with new evidence, the bat is clearly no good. I'm sure Taube would tell the original buyer that he found out the bat is no good, but the buyer says he no longer has it.

Now, the current owner of the bat is told by PSA's bat grading division that has Taube as CEO that the bat is no good. I couldn't really see holding JT liable for the current value of the bat. I could only see him being liable to the original purchaser for whatever that price was, again, plus some inflation adjustment.

[3arod13]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

So let me ask this. You have a PSA 10 graded bat that you sell to me on ebay. I then turn around and sell it ebay. My buyer later proves that the bat isn't authentic game used. I'm obligated to refund the final buyer? Then I have to go after you for a refund?

Always wondered how this would work. Ebay accepts PSA items being sold, as they recognize them as a trustworthy authentication service. PSA authenticated the bat.

I'm sure I know what they answer will be.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Interesting. I think Spence should be responsible to Eric and end it there. Each time that ball changed hands, it had a lot to do with the LOA attached to the ball for each buyer. To hold buyers accountable, when they did nothing wrong, is difficult for me to take. However, that's just my opinion.

I would understand that logic, except that the second seller (the middle party claiming no fault since they're business is defunct) also included a COA/LOA as a UACC dealer.

Technically speaking, UACC members are supposed to offer lifetime returns on all items with a clear receipt.

As for the Rockies, that's also why I say liability should follow the chain of custody. The Rockies limit their liability to the original party, since that's the only transaction that they can control. If the party then sells to someone else, they're selling custodial provenance along with the physical item. That's why, sometimes, when I purchase an item I'm unsure on, I ask for a statement of provenance. It probably has no validity in court, but it does allow me to go back to the person who sold to me to at least try and get my money back, should someone that I sell to say it's fake.

[camarokids]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Hope you get your money back. If not, you should have a solid case in court.

[xpress34]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Interesting. I think Spence should be responsible to Eric and end it there. Each time that ball changed hands, it had a lot to do with the LOA attached to the ball for each buyer. To hold buyers accountable, when they did nothing wrong, is difficult for me to take. However, that's just my opinion.

Which is why many COAs/LOAs now (The Colorado Rockies LOAs come to mind) flat out state that they cannot verify the item if sold to another party.

Once the original buyer from the team sells it, the Rockies have zero obligation/liability/exposure.

[3arod13]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

In any case, I think that the guy who sold the ball to Eric should be held responsible to Eric, and then Spence held liable to the second party. That makes the most sense to me.

Interesting. I think Spence should be responsible to Eric and end it there. Each time that ball changed hands, it had a lot to do with the LOA attached to the ball for each buyer. To hold buyers accountable, when they did nothing wrong, is difficult for me to take. However, that's just my opinion.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Where is everyone getting $200 from? I think it sold for $1,500???

Then $1500 at 3.5% annual... $3020.63.

In any case, I think that the guy who sold the ball to Eric should be held responsible to Eric, and then Spence held liable to the second party. That makes the most sense to me.

[mbrieve]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

Where is everyone getting $200 from? I think it sold for $1,500???

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

UPDATE:
James Spence has reached out to me and offered to discuss the matter when he returns to his office on Friday. He says it will give us the chance to "resolve this matter properly."

Hopefully he will do the right thing...

You should ask for $200+3.5% annual interest, compounded continuously.

[ironmanfan]

Re: James Spence's "Lifetime Guarantee"

I know the heat is on Spence (understandably) but I also think Millwich has some accountability in this as well.