Silver Stackers

if i was zhao and everyone was happy letting me make 100k on the coin ,and I come out looking like a good guy,that is a no brainer for me.................:) I dont know Zhao but assuming he is an intellegent person , why wouldnt he have done that??  before we hang the guy you have to a least wonder if there is another side of the story...........

Perhaps I am missing your point, but I'm only going by the facts:

1. You cannot easily establish that the American dealer had a claim on the coin, because it appears that the title never transferred to them, it stayed with the German dealer.
2. You cannot easily establish that Zhou knew about the American dealer's claim on the coin (EVEN IF the American dealer had a claim) because he was asked to buy it by the German dealer.

Zhou didn't steal the coin. The German dealer negligently but legitimately transferred the coin and the title to Zhou.

If I were the American dealer, I would be unhappy towards the German dealer because they lost the coin for over a year, then they found it but didn't recognize it, then they sold it to someone else.
If I were the American dealer, I would be understanding towards the Chinese dealer because he was sold a coin that I wanted.

If I were the Chinese dealer, I would try to settle a mutually beneficial deal with the American, because I don't want a train wreck.
If I were the Chinese dealer, I would be unhappy towards the German dealer for going back on a deal that was settled months ago.

If I were the German dealer, I would be praying that I don't get sued by the American dealer for breach of contract.
If I were the German dealer, I would be praying that I don't get sued by the Chinese dealer for breach of contract.

I'm sure Nick is a nice guy. I'm sure Zhou is a nice guy. I'm sure the German dealer is a nice guy.

I don't know Nick or Zhou or the German dealer, but from what I've read, there is only one party that is factually at fault, and that is the German dealer.

"1. You cannot easily establish that the American dealer had a claim on the coin, because it appears that the title never transferred to them, it stayed with the German dealer."

I disagree with this. As I understand it, an invoice (which is a contract) and the transfer of money from buyer to seller transfers title. It is common to pay for an item prior to delivery. Title (I think) changes hands when the payment is cashed by the seller, if not earlier when the agreement is made. If this wasn't true it would lead to chaos. People would continue to shop deals around until final delivery was made. Had somebody come along and offered the German seller MORE for the coin, the dealer still wouldn't have had any right to sell it to that second person because it was no longer his to sell. That coin was sold when an agreement was made between the first buyer and the seller, and the coin paid for.

BTW, if there is any ambiguity here, I am positive that Nick Brown is not the first buyer, or involved financially in this transaction in any way.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
China Pricepedia
http://www.pandacollector.com

Last edited by Pandacollector (2012-08-09 08:22:53)

.

Last edited by dollars (2013-04-06 17:01:04)

Yennus,

Thanks for the carefully crafted responses, this is fun. I don't know how Australian or other countries' laws handle this, but USA law does not recognize a BFP, not even 1%. If the first buyer succeeds in establishing his ownership he may legally seize, or confiscate, the property without any obligation whatsoever to compensate the second buyer. The law is meant to discourage the purchase of stolen property by making the argument that you so elegantly offered void. Buyers of second hand merchandise in the USA are very careful to steer clear of potentially stolen, or contested, property. That part of the law is pretty widely known in America, so I'm confident that I have the broad outline correct.

If someone who knows German law could chime in, that would be helpful. One person told me that German law is similar to American in this regard. As the coin changed hands in Germany it may be German law that decides the matter, at least outside of China.

So where does Zhao's alleged actions leaves the second buyer? Possibly with a coin that can never be taken to much of the Western world. In short, up the creek.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
China Pricepedia
http://www.pandacollector.com

Last edited by Pandacollector (2012-08-09 15:20:28)

PandaCollector: Thanks for the carefully crafted responses, this is fun.
Yennus: Thanks PandaCollector, indeed, this is very interesting.

PandaCollector:  I don't know how Australian or other countries' laws handle this, but USA law does not recognize a BFP, not even 1%. If the first buyer succeeds in establishing his ownership he may legally seize, or confiscate, the property without any obligation whatsoever to compensate the second buyer. The law is meant to discourage the purchase of stolen property by making the argument that you so elegantly offered void.
Yennus:
a) Unfortunately the American dealer cannot succeed in establishing his ownership. He can only sue the German dealer for breach of contract - because the German dealer failed to pass title to him.
b) Even if, which I don't think is possible from the information currently available, the American dealer succeeds in establishing his ownership of the goods, BFP does still offer protection for the Chinese dealer. BFP does not protect the buyer in cases of "stolen goods". However, from my understanding
c) This is clearly not a case of stolen goods because:
i) the German dealer did not hand over the title to the American dealer. = The American dealer has no title claim.
ii) the German dealer approached the Chinese dealer. = The Chinese dealer is a BFP.
iii) the German dealer sold the title and coin to the Chinese dealer. = The German dealer passed the title to the Chinese dealer.
iv) the German dealer is in breach of contract to the American dealer. = The American dealer can sue the German dealer for breach of contract.

Yennus,

Yes, this is very, very interesting. We will see how this plays out, and who is finally determined to have title to the coin. Thanks very much to your lawyer friend for his analysis, and thank you for providing it

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
China Pricepedia
http://www.pandacollector.com

Many thanks to the resident anonymous Panda lawyer who has contributed the following:

>>>
The full term for BFP is "bona fide purchaser without notice for value".  In relation to U.S law, not only has the concept been part of case law for a very long time (see first paragraph of http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewco … ntext=flr), but the concept has also been codified in statute.  The US Code applies it directly to patents as a form of (intellectual) property: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/261.  In relation to chattels (goods), the principle is codified in the Uniform Commercial Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-403.html.

Here's a somewhat amusing case that arose from someone who sold diamonds to a defrauder: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? … i=scholarr (this is the appeals judgment; I couldn't find the trial judgment, but see section II.A).  A really brief summary is here if you don't want to read the case (but you should at least read the facts, it reads like a novel with a lot of unsavory African characters that will make your head spin): http://ucclitigation.blogspot.com/2009/ … inged.html.  Replace diamonds with "coin" and you'll see some parallels.  The case also talks about choice of law issues between Spain and the US.

The BFP concept only comes into play if title passed to the American and therefore the German was selling something he did not own. However this does not mean that Zhao doesn't get any title – he still gets possessory title by the mere fact that he possesses the coin.  Possessory title is good against the world, except anyone with superior title – which is only the German.  But unfortunately, the law (and equity) intervenes to cut off title to the German because of the BFP event.

Relevant excerpt from the case:
A bona fide purchaser is one who pays value, in good faith, and without actual or constructive notice of another's rights in the property. (Oakdale Village Group v. Fong (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 547.) The trial court found that defendants met this test, and that defendants purchased the gems from "persons who had apparent title but at least voidable title." We find this conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

California law distinguishes between the person who purchased from someone who obtained title to the property by fraud and the person who purchased from a thief who had no title to sell. An involuntary transfer results in void title, while a voluntary transfer, even if fraudulent, results in voidable title. (Cal. U. Com. Code, § 2403, subd. (1);[4] Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1354, 1360-1361.) "As a general rule, an innocent purchaser for value and without actual or constructive notice that [the] vendor has secured the goods by a fraudulent purchase is not liable for conversion." (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Torts, § 716, p. 1040.) However, the rule is different when it comes to involuntary transfers: because "(s)tolen property remains stolen property," a thief "cannot convey valid title to an innocent purchaser of stolen property." (Naftzger v. American Numismatic Society (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 421, 432.)

In the present case, according to plaintiffs' own theory, either one of two scenarios addressed in Commercial Code, section 2403, subdivision (1), applies to this case, and under either scenario good title passes under California law. Under one scenario, the "transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser" (§ 2403, subd. (1)(a))—i.e., Chayto was deceived as to the true identity of Mrs. Mobutu. Under the other scenario, the "delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law" (§ 2403, subd. (1)(d))—i.e., Chayto's delivery of the gems to Shamash was procured by fraud. Under either scenario, because Shamash had voidable title, he could transfer good title even if he procured the gems from Chayto through fraud punishable as larceny. If, as plaintiffs assert, Shamash and Achmed were both involved in the scam together, then Achmed acquired voidable title from Shamash, and he was able to transfer good title to the defendants. (The only way Achmed would have less than voidable title is if Achmed stole the stones from Shamash, and there is no evidence of that.)
<<<

After reading all these replies, it is sad to say 以和為貴、誠信為本、忠義為道, has been forgotten.

Regardless of what the final outcome from the court of law, or whether there will be one, I believe the court of public opinion already has its mind made up.

I think the word stolen should be removed from the title of this thread. Controversy would be a better term.

I am more concerned about entities in the Zhao organization manipulating auction prices to pump up MCC prices.