Question to the forum: Who do you hold responsible?

[3arod13]

Scenario: I sell you a Alex Rodriguez Game Used Signed Bat, that comes with an LOA signed by Arod as "Game Used." You receive the bat and later obtain sold proof that the bat is actually a batting practice bat and was never used in a game.

Do you hold me responsible for selling it to you and expect me to refund your money?

Regards, Tony

[3arod13]

Scenario: I sell you a Alex Rodriguez Game Used Signed Bat, that comes with an LOA signed by Arod as "Game Used." You receive the bat and later obtain sold proof that the bat is actually a batting practice bat and was never used in a game.

Do you hold me responsible for selling it to you and expect me to refund your money?

Regards, Tony

Sorry, "SOLID PROOF"

[Sheffield11]

i would expect you to give the buyer the intial refund, but then i would expect you to return the bat to company who you bought it from. therefore the company who authenticated it would take the lose.

[kingjammy24]

i hold Arod responsible for starting the entire screw-up when he should've known better. i hold me responsible for not doing my homework. i hold you responsible for selling something that you didn't do your own homework on and blindly accepting an Arod cert as gospel.

of course, i'd expect you to refund my dough and then, like sheffield11 said, pursue your own refund with Arod's people. if you refuse to refund the purchase, then i'd also hold you responsible for failing to make good on a bad situation.

ultimately, it starts and ends with Arod but in between it seems everyone else failed to do their homework so everyone deserves part of the blame. Arod shouldn't have sold it as a game, you shouldn't have bought it as a gamer simply because of Arod's cert, and i shouldn't have bought it from you as a gamer. we all dropped the ball. the chain of recourse ought to be for you to refund my money and then for Arod to refund yours.

rudy.

[3arod13]

i hold Arod responsible for starting the entire screw-up when he should've known better. i hold me responsible for not doing my homework. i hold you responsible for selling something that you didn't do your own homework on and blindly accepting an Arod cert as gospel.

of course, i'd expect you to refund my dough and then, like sheffield11 said, pursue your own refund with Arod's people. if you refuse to refund the purchase, then i'd also hold you responsible for failing to make good on a bad situation.

ultimately, it starts and ends with Arod but in between it seems everyone else failed to do their homework so everyone deserves part of the blame. Arod shouldn't have sold it as a game, you shouldn't have bought it as a gamer simply because of Arod's cert, and i shouldn't have bought it from you as a gamer. we all dropped the ball. the chain of recourse ought to be for you to refund my money and then for Arod to refund yours.

rudy.

First let me say, this is only a scenario for the question at hand, and did not actually happen.

My only concern was how others view this scenario. As always Rudy, well said and I agree 100%.

Regards, Tony

[David]

Relevant notes:

The original AROD dealer is responsible for the original sales price, not any later resales price.

The AROD dealer may only be willing to give the refund to the person they sold it to (which may be you). Memorabilia is stolen, not in the hands of the rightful owner, and they may not be willing to give cash to anyone who walks in the door with an AROD bat, someone they have never have even met before. This would be a recipe for giving multiple refunds on a single bat.

[Vintagedeputy]

If Arod follows the MLB theory that batting practice = game used, then I hold the buyer responsible for not doing his homework.

Caveat Emptor!

[David]

Whether it's a lawn mower or a car, and barring special contract or verification from the original purchaser, under what situation would you give a refund to a person who never bought anything from you and who you had never met before? Authentication companies may work differently, but under normal situations you give refunds only to people who earlier gave you money.

[allstarsplus]

If Arod follows the MLB theory that batting practice = game used, then I hold the buyer responsible for not doing his homework.

Caveat Emptor! You are correct on the MLB definition.

I was at RFK Stadium tonight going through dozens of game used bats that had MLB holograms and saw a few bats that had green ink and no blue ink. If you do your homework you know it is a BP, but by MLB definition it is "game used".

Using ARod as an example, there were always those blonde LS from when he was with Texas that were sold as game used. The bats had blue ink transfers as they weren't using the green BP balls, and there were a couple of instances reported of ARod using a blonde LS in a game. ARod signs them as game used and if you do your homework you wouldn't want to pay the same price as a similar black LS.

Lets use a Mike Piazza example. He liked Rawlings for BP and Mizuno for game use when he was with the Mets. You would expect an honest dealer to give you that info, but ultimately it is on the buyer to do the homework.

Andrew