Shrinking CGC market....

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

http://cgi.ebay.com/NICK-FURY-AGENT-OF- ... dZViewItem

So, this sold for about twice the 9.2 price, which is about right. It's nice to see the market settling into normalcy after so many years of "10 times guide price!" nonsense.

On an unrelated note....the seller's description includes this line:

"This is a great, guaranteed investment that will only increase in value over time."

Statements like this are ILLEGAL in the securities (stocks and bonds) markets, as well as in real estate, and any financial investments of any time. If a stock trader were to make this claim, and value was LOST, the STOCK TRADER could be held liable for that loss, because they "guaranteed" that it wouldn't. They would also face FAT fines from the FTC, as well as possibly losing their license.

Ever since 1929, they take all this stuff VERRRRRRY seriously.

It is only a matter of time before eBay cracks down on this sort of stuff, too. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

[stone384]

This is a great, guaranteed investment that will only increase in value over time."

Statements like this are ILLEGAL in the securities (stocks and bonds) markets, as well as in real estate, and any financial investments of any time. If a stock trader were to make this claim, and value was LOST, the STOCK TRADER could be held liable for that loss, because they "guaranteed" that it wouldn't. They would also face FAT fines from the FTC, as well as possibly losing their license.

Ever since 1929, they take all this stuff VERRRRRRY seriously.

It is only a matter of time before eBay cracks down on this sort of stuff, too. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

That's why stocks aren't considered collectibles.

m

[Chiclo]

Is it illegal or does it just open the individual making the claim to action should the item in question lose value?

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Is it illegal or does it just open the individual making the claim to action should the item in question lose value?

It's officially illegal, regulated by the FTC, in any securities markets. It's also illegal in real estate. It's probably illegal for dealerships, too, but the idea that a car "loses 50% of its value when you drive it off the lot" is so deeply ingrained in the public psyche, it probably doesn't matter.

That's what caused the stock crash of '29....stock brokers kept telling people "you can't LOSE! This is GUARANTEED to make you money!" and making people invest on HEAVY, HEAVY margins (90%!...that means you could put up $10, and get $100 worth of stock!) in questionable, financially unstable companies.

[superman-prime]

i remember the margins mess what a nightmare

kinda like adjustable loans on houses

[possumgrease]

Well, even if a person makes that statement and it ultimately goes down in value, they may still not be liable if the statement isn't what induced the purchaser to make the transaction. Also, if the purchaser is a seasoned comic collector, his reliance on that guarantee (with nothing more stated) would perhaps have been unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate only...not offering a legal opinion...

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Well, even if a person makes that statement and it ultimately goes down in value, they may still not be liable if the statement isn't what induced the purchaser to make the transaction. Also, if the purchaser is a seasoned comic collector, his reliance on that guarantee (with nothing more stated) would perhaps have been unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate only...not offering a legal opinion...

Well, but that's sort of a moot argument, is it not? If the buyer doesn't CARE that it went down, then there's no issue. As in any case, a person is only HELD liable if someone brings the charge against them.

If the buyer DOES care, it does not matter that person's knowledge or experience in the field..."the buyer should have known that that was a false claim" is not a defense.

There's a reason why these statements are illegal in these markets.

[tarheelmarine]

Well, even if a person makes that statement and it ultimately goes down in value, they may still not be liable if the statement isn't what induced the purchaser to make the transaction. Also, if the purchaser is a seasoned comic collector, his reliance on that guarantee (with nothing more stated) would perhaps have been unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate only...not offering a legal opinion...

Well, but that's sort of a moot argument, is it not? If the buyer doesn't CARE that it went down, then there's no issue. As in any case, a person is only HELD liable if someone brings the charge against them.

If the buyer DOES care, it does not matter that person's knowledge or experience in the field..."the buyer should have known that that was a false claim" is not a defense.

There's a reason why these statements are illegal in these markets.

Seriously, if someone is dumb enough to believe someones opinion on ebay they deserve to be taken for a ride. Comice are not investments. Anyone who thinks they are needs to PM me for investment advice.

[possumgrease]

Well, even if a person makes that statement and it ultimately goes down in value, they may still not be liable if the statement isn't what induced the purchaser to make the transaction. Also, if the purchaser is a seasoned comic collector, his reliance on that guarantee (with nothing more stated) would perhaps have been unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate only...not offering a legal opinion...

Well, but that's sort of a moot argument, is it not? If the buyer doesn't CARE that it went down, then there's no issue. As in any case, a person is only HELD liable if someone brings the charge against them.

If the buyer DOES care, it does not matter that person's knowledge or experience in the field..."the buyer should have known that that was a false claim" is not a defense.

There's a reason why these statements are illegal in these markets.

Again, with regards to just comics, it would be a partial defense in the sense that the seller could attempt to say, "Geesh. Of course it wasn't a literal guarantee. It was puffery and a seasoned comic collector should have known that." It's not the best defense, but it's a defense. Or, in similar vein, the seller could attempt to say that he wasn't selling a guarantee, but just a comic...that the bargained-for exchange didn't include the guarantee. Again, just one way to look at the issue from a UCC/Contracts standpoint.

Another way is look at what is actually guaranteed? "This is a great, guaranteed investment that will only increase in value over time." If it goes up in value the next month, he may have satisfied his allegation. Likewise, because it's open ended, it would be nearly impossible to prove that it's not true if you have to wait "over time." I'm sure in 200 years, it would be worth more than it is today. It's too indefinite to enforce.

If you want to get more picky about the language, it seems he says that it is a "guaranteed investment". Investments can be both good and bad it would seem.

I don't know why I'm defending the guy b/c I don't like the comment either.

[ZephyrWasHOT!!]

Well, even if a person makes that statement and it ultimately goes down in value, they may still not be liable if the statement isn't what induced the purchaser to make the transaction. Also, if the purchaser is a seasoned comic collector, his reliance on that guarantee (with nothing more stated) would perhaps have been unreasonable.

Playing devil's advocate only...not offering a legal opinion...

Well, but that's sort of a moot argument, is it not? If the buyer doesn't CARE that it went down, then there's no issue. As in any case, a person is only HELD liable if someone brings the charge against them.

If the buyer DOES care, it does not matter that person's knowledge or experience in the field..."the buyer should have known that that was a false claim" is not a defense.

There's a reason why these statements are illegal in these markets.

Again, with regards to just comics, it would be a partial defense in the sense that the seller could attempt to say, "Geesh. Of course it wasn't a literal guarantee. It was puffery and a seasoned comic collector should have known that." It's not the best defense, but it's a defense.

It's no defense. Any judge listening to that would laugh. And no, I'm not kidding.

He could also use the "Chewbacca" defense, too....hey, it's a defense!

Or, in similar vein, the seller could attempt to say that he wasn't selling a guarantee, but just a comic...that the bargained-for exchange didn't include the guarantee. Again, just one way to look at the issue from a UCC/Contracts standpoint.

Again, a judge would laugh. The guarantee is sitting there, right at the beginning of the description. You cannot seperate the guarantee from the auction.

Another way is look at what is actually guaranteed? "This is a great, guaranteed investment that will only increase in value over time." If it goes up in value the next month, he may have satisfied his allegation. Likewise, because it's open ended, it would be nearly impossible to prove that it's not true if you have to wait "over time." I'm sure in 200 years, it would be worth more than it is today. It's too indefinite to enforce.

Here's where that fails: "This is a great, guaranteed investment that will only increase in value over time."

That means ANY decrease, at ANY time, no matter HOW slight contradicts the "guarantee" and therefore makes it invalid.

Oh, and the stock brokers tried that excuse, too, and lost.

If you want to get more picky about the language, it seems he says that it is a "guaranteed investment". Investments can be both good and bad it would seem.

"Guaranteed investment" means that the investment will make money. Only the most completely liberal, unrealistic interpretation of that statement would allow for a "well, I didn't say WHICH way it was guaranteed!"....and would, again, be laughed out of court.

I don't know why I'm defending the guy b/c I don't like the comment either.

These arguments you're throwing up are interesting to discuss in theory, but they're not valid. Yes, in THEORY, you could say he meant that the moon was going to turn into gold and rain down on the new buyer, but that's not within the realm of reality...nothing are any of these "defenses."