i purchased an antique now seller is not happy

[poor volvo]

i purchased an antique, now the seller is unhappy

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? oregon

i am an antique dealer.
a fellow was refered to our business to sell an antique that someone told him was worth $20,000-$30,000.
he had done research on the internet and was aware of the exact description and details of his item.
he bought the item new 37 years ago for less than $300.

he told me he had $20,000 worth of bills to pay off so he needed to get at least that much.
i offered him $25,000 and we negotiated from there to $29,000.
i told him that the market value of items such as his had softened considerably in these economic times and he said he was very aware of the economic situation and even his own employer was having big problems selling luxury cars.
we made our deal at $29,000 and i paid him in full and got a signed bill of sale.

it was important to him to make a clean, fast, no risk deal and not take the risk of an internet transaction or long term consignment.
he and his wife were very happy with the transaction, thanked me and wished me a good profit on my investment.

today i got a call from another antique dealer in my area warning me that the seller has an attorney calling around asking what this item might be worth.
seems he did some more research and found 2 similar items for sale on ebay, one for about $200,000 and one for about $99,000.
these are asking prices not bids received.

both of these ebay items are listed at rediculous prices and give a make offer option.
these high asking prices in no way reflect the actual cash value of what a dealer would pay in this very depressed market.

the antiques and collectibles market is suffering right now just like real estate, the stock market and luxury items in gereral.
many of these collectibles are bringing 25-50% of what they ultimately could have been sold for retail in the best of times.
many collectors of these items have now become sellers to raise money.
also, our U.S. dollar has strengthened to the point that european and asian customers are not buying over here.
this has limited the number of potential buyers we have for such items.

should i be concerned about a potential law suit?
the seller has not contacted me since our transaction.
do they have a legal leg to stand on?

thank you

 

[Roo]

Based on what you posted, I wouldn't worry.
You both agreed on a price, he got the money, you got the item. Done deal.
Then again, if they claim it's worth 100-200K, offer to sell it back for say, 50k.

 

[jdawg83]

Caveat venditor-Let the Seller Beware

As long as you were upfront and honest with him, and you didn't fraudulently deceive him into selling something for much less what you knew it to be worth your fine.

Now if he believes that you took advantage of him that is another story all together. If he convinces a lawyer that you did, which it seems like, and they can compile enough evidence to show that you knew at the time of transaction how much the item was actually worth, you might be in a position to be served with a lawsuit, will he win...based off your story (if 100% true)...probably not.

 

[CraigFL]

As a buyer and seller of items too, I feel that the sellers have to realize that the price I pay for an item is the wholesale/dealer price and not the expected retail price. I always tell them they could get more if they sold it themselves...

 

[You Are Guilty]

As long as you were upfront and honest with him, and you didn't fraudulently deceive him into selling something for much less what you knew it to be worth your fine.

Now if he believes that you took advantage of him that is another story all together. If he convinces a lawyer that you did, which it seems like, and they can compile enough evidence to show that you knew at the time of transaction how much the item was actually worth, you might be in a position to be served with a lawsuit, will he win...based off your story (if 100% true)...probably not.

What the hell are you talking about? If I buy a car that I know is worth, say $50k, from someone who offers to sell it to me for $25k, I am not liable for "fraudulently deceiving" him, nor car the seller get the car back just because he didn't know how much it was worth.

Of course, that doesn't mean the seller won't try to intimidate the buyer, or file a lawsuit, but under the OP's facts, a lawsuit would be easily defended, and arguably open up the plaintiff-seller to a counter claim for abuse of process and/or sanctions for a frivolous filing.

 

[Rexlan]

I agree with YAG. The seller has no case.

I do like the idea of offering to sell it back to him for $100K (1/2 of the eBay price) and letting him subsequently resell it for his imagined $200K ..lol.

 

[poor volvo]

so what if i would have bought this item from him and tried to sell it and the market was such that i had to loose money on it to sell it?

this is a very real possibility the way things have been going.

could i contact him and tell him i am no longer happy with the purchase price and get a refund for my loss?

what was his response be?


i purchased another item a few years ago for $77,000 based on a $200,000 + auction result on a similar item sold at a major european auction house.

i tried to sell it for about a year willing to accept any profit i could get.
finally i tried my luck with a major european auction house,
it took about 3 months for them to catalog it, sell it and pay me.
after commisions and fees, i lost $34,000.

could i contact the person i bought it from and get my $34,000 back?

fat chance!

thanks again for your responses

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: could i contact him and tell him i am no longer happy with the purchase price and get a refund for my loss?

A: Yes. That will take the wind out of his sales (pun intended).

 

[Dandy Don]

Do you even know the actual value of the item you are referring to? Get an official appraisal so you will have a better idea of whether it is worth what he is claiming or not.

 

[poor volvo]

an appraisal would be based on the asking prices and sale information that the appraiser could find.
an appraisal is only one persons opinion of the replacement value, not a gaurantee of what someone can sell it for today.
read the disclaimer on the back of any appraisal.
it will state that this is a value based on information collected and is an approximate replacement value and not an offer to buy or sell.

it is common for the actual cash value of appraised collectibles to be 10-30 percent of the appraised value.

no one knows exactly what an item is worth until it is sold and paid for.

then the next similar item that comes up for sale could go for more or less.

each item finds it's own market value.

how many people have had their real estate appraised only to find out it has very little to do with what they can sell it for?

 

[jdawg83]

YAG: what are you talking about, I never said that the seller would win, I said that if he can say that the OP took advantage of him, and prove it there would be a problem, but if the OP was upfront and honest he was fine.


If an old lady comes up to me and says I want to sell item x, how much can i get for it, and I tell her its worth 10K but I will buy it for 9K, but I know i can get at least 50K for it, and she has no idea what its worth, I am in a capacity to be sued for taking advantage of her, because I have an unfair bargaining power, I knew how much it is actually worth.

 

[You Are Guilty]

And in what state can we find that law? If you have the specific code section, that would be great.

 

[jdawg83]

Misrepresentation

Sale of goods are controlled by the Uniform Commercial Code.

Buy or selling is a contract: there is a meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance, consideration.

If I misrepresent the true value of an item, I put myself in a position to be sued. It would not be conscionable for a person with reasonable knowledge to sell something unwittingly for a lot less than what its worth. If you take advantage of someone they can sue you.


§ 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Term.

(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any term of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) If it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any term thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose, and effect to aid the court in making the determination.

Now, if you are upfront and honest and say "hey this item is worth a decent amount of money, lets make a deal" and you negotiate a price and that person believes its only worth a certain amount of money anyways no harm no foul. But If I tell you something I know to be false for the simple fact of getting over on you, im unjustly enriching myself by misrepresenting the true value of that property in order to obtain it.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Oh boy.

First, while I am not an Oregon attorney, I'm somewhat confident that OR did not adopt the UCC wholesale. If so, show me where 2-302 is good Oregon law.

Second, don't do #1. Why? Because you're defining unconscionability incorrectly. But don't listen to me, take it straight from an Oregon's Court's mouth:

It is not enough, as we have said, that defendant made what, in retrospect, turned out to be a bad bargain.

Even better, a quick glance at the 2-302 commentary:

The principle is one of the prevention of oppression and unfair surprise . . .and not of disturbance of allocation of risks because of superior bargaining power.

And keeping the gravy train rolling:

Oregon courts have been reluctant to disturb agreements between parties on the basis of unconscionability, even when those parties do not come to the bargaining table with equal power.

Nice try, though

 

[jdawg83]

Ask and you shall receive YAG:

Chapter 72 — Sales

72.3020 Unconscionable contract or clause. (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. [1961 c.726 §72.3020]


Unconscionable legally defined:

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Unconscionable legal definition of Unconscionable. Unconscionable synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Back at ya! lol i appreciate the added common law, I don't have time to look any up right now so, you got me there. Furthermore just in case the OP is confused, we aren't referring to you, but the analogy I used in one of my postings, as long as you didn't deceive him and your story is a true unbiased account of what happened, he may try and sue you, but he will not win. Its all about reliance, you were not the one to put the original dollar amount in his head, he came in with that knowledge, its not your fault, you both negotiated a deal, you offered, he accepted, you gave him money, he gave you the item, the end.