Crazy Trade-In Story, Guy wants stuff back the next day?

[DreamTR]

So one of my guys does a buy of some systems, empty boxes, some garbage, boxed games, etc....it's about $50 he gives the guy last night. After putting half the stuff on the shelf and going through the eBay pile the guy (who is about 35 or so) calls me back and says he wants his stuff back saying his little brothers were "not ready to give it up" yet. Now, the guy is over 18, the systems are all classic and he offered me an extra $25 to come and get it back, and he's an hour and a half away.

My thinking is he thinks he could have gotten more elsewhere after looking on ebay or something, but he says that the $50 we gave him (which he negotiated after we originally said $44) was not the issue...

He then says something about some Tennessee law stating that we have to hold stuff for 24 hours before we sell it after buying? (WTF? Never heard of this) and I'm pretty certain that is for pawn shops and video game systems and serial numbers...


Anyone ever heard of someone trying to do this before?

[Vectorman0]

I know this has happened to Nick at Next Level Videogames, recently too.

[NPLgamer]

HAHAHA Laugh at him and tell him to get lost, espically since he pulled that it's a law crap. DO NOT GIVE HIM HIS STUFF BACK. Some dude that trades in old games for $50 bucks will not be calling anyone about laws.

[portnoyd]

Tell him store policy is no buybacks. He likely won't push the issue.

[DreamTR]

I already told the guy we don't do buybacks....I am positive it's a "whoops, that stuff goes for more on ebay" type of 180 he is trying to pull...

Oh, and this guy drove 90 minutes here to sell the stuff in the first place...

[Icarus Moonsight]

Argument by appeal to what probably amounts to a fictitious law huh? I am reminded: "No ma'am, we will not come to enforce your Western Bacon Cheeseburger."

If I documented everything he brought, I'd sell it back to him at resale price minus a certain percentage to try and make it all smooth (a quick volume turn around is worth something at least). Something tells me $75 wouldn't even be close though (the new information of a 90 minute drive confirms that). And I wouldn't eat any more because this guy changed his mind. If that didn't work, then I would not miss him as a customer.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

This would occasionally happen at the Funcoland I used to manage.

And while I'm sure that from a legal standpoint the signature required on the trade-in slip would be "legally binding", if the matter ever did escalate to corporate they would typically just cave and let the person have their stuff back, especially since we didn't give cash, only store credit.

Sounds like it's going to be a headache to fight the guy over the stuff. If it's worth the time to fight it out, nobody can stop you, but I'd be more inclined to just give the stuff back, especially if you're going to make some small profit on the deal.

[Bojay1997]

Argument by appeal to what probably amounts to a fictitious law huh? I am reminded: "No ma'am, we will not come to enforce your Western Bacon Cheeseburger."

If I documented everything he brought, I'd sell it back to him at resale price minus a certain percentage to try and make it all smooth (a quick volume turn around is worth something at least). Something tells me $75 wouldn't even be close though (the new information of a 90 minute drive confirms that). And I wouldn't eat any more because this guy changed his mind. If that didn't work, then I would not miss him as a customer.

Actually, all those stories about people calling the police on fast food places miss the point. Generally, the customer places an order and after they pay, is told they don't have the item they ordered available. So, the customer asks for a refund. The cashier refuses saying they will have to order something else because the transaction has already gone through. At that point, faced with not getting the food they ordered and being told they can't have their money back, the very frustrated customer calls 911. Now I agree that's the wrong approach and it isn't an emergency, but what is a customer supposed to do in that situation? Just walk away and let the fast food place steal their money? In this situation, if the items haven't been sold yet, I agree there is no legal reason to agree to the request, but it seems like good business to just return the items in exchange for the payment given that this guy could be telling the truth.

[jonebone]

Don't do it.

[Jimmy Yakapucci]

I remember reading that some states do require stores that buy used games and systems to be regulated in the same way that pawn shops are. That is one reason why some require the person selling the items to be 18 years old and provide identification. Don't know if this applies in your situation, but that guy could be correct. Although the reason for holding for 24 hours usually is not for seller's remorse, but rather to see if any items sold are reported stolen.

JY

[Cloud121]

Argument by appeal to what probably amounts to a fictitious law huh? I am reminded: "No ma'am, we will not come to enforce your Western Bacon Cheeseburger."
A bit off-topic:

As soon as I read that quote, I immediately did a search on that.

Wow....

[tofu]

I remember reading that some states do require stores that buy used games and systems to be regulated in the same way that pawn shops are. That is one reason why some require the person selling the items to be 18 years old and provide identification. Don't know if this applies in your situation, but that guy could be correct. Although the reason for holding for 24 hours usually is not for seller's remorse, but rather to see if any items sold are reported stolen.

JY

That's what happened to one retailer in California. He stills owns one store in Los Angeles on Palms, but his other store got raided because he was operating it without a pawnshop license.

Although I still wouldn't give this guy's stuff back unless you buy into that sob story about his little brothers.

[jbjabroni]

Probably best to just give it back to him. Def not worth the potential headaches it could cause. While I don't think he would take legal action def best just to CYA if you know what I mean.

[Darko]

I highly doubt that he could successfully pursue any legitimate legal action against you. That being said, if you're running a business I would be sure that I know all of the potential legal ramifications. Sounds like you need to do some research.

As far as the games/etc go. Is it really going to be that big of a deal to give it back to him? From what it sounds like you got from him, you'd be making about $200 on resale? I really have no idea, but I doubt it's $500 worth of inventory. The guy lives 90 minutes away and obviously isn't a collector, etc. My point is, if you did return his items, I doubt that you'll be faced with the same issue again based on word of mouth. If it was me, I would just give it back and tell him that you will NOT do this again as it's against store policy. Let's say his story is true? How would you have felt if your parents sold your NES when you were young. That would have been terrible for me.

[DreamTR]

The main problem is I don't even know everything he traded in...there were boxes, pamphlets, random overstock games, memory cards, I mean, there is NO list, and honestly, why should I give it back? I have a resale certificate, I buy things for resale. The guy was over 18, and after 90 min of work putting all this stuff on shelves and away (and 4 of the things he had were sold immediately in the morning) it just doesn't make sense, the guy can claim anything he wants...

I SOLD THEM $50 WORTH OF STUFF and THERE IT ALL IS. At that point it is my word against his but the employee that took it all it can basically say at that point what came in and what did not, but the point is the guy hung up on me after I told him he couldn't have the stuff back for $75, we just don't give back buybacks....it's not a pawn shop where you put something on hold for a few days and pay X amount to get it back and EVERY single game store/music store/trade in place operates the same way I do with the same licenses I have...so I don't see how seller's remorse plays a role here a day after it gets sold...

[Darko]

So I've just been combing through Tennessee Law. You are not a pawn shop under the legal definition according to Tenn. You're right. He's over 18, so that's a non-issue. If he was not, you'd obviously have an issue. If there is a sign in your store that states that you do not provide buy backs, or that all sales are final, then you have even less to worry about. Some receipts I've seen after selling something to a store state this.

If you don't even know what the stuff is, then I wouldn't mess with it. I didn't realize that. Plus, if some of it is sold, even if you wanted to give it back, he's SOL.

Here's a link to all of Tennessee's laws FYI.

http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp

Even though you're not a pawn shop, you might need to look into the laws regarding record keeping. Apparently you are required to keep documentation on ALL of the purchases in detail. I realize that you're not a PS, but it probably wouldn't be a bad practice on in store purchases. I'm not running down what you do, I'm just giving my opinion based on what I read. I would definitely add a sign to your register/check out counter stating your buying policy. A simple "All Trade-Ins and Purchases by Game Galaxy are Final" would probably do.

The only definite way to see if you're potentially liable for anything would be to go through case dockets from similar cases and see how they turned out. Considering the guy would probably have to pay an attorney $1000 to even look into it, I highly doubt that it would be worth your time.

[bend]

I know someone who owns a game store and goes through the same issues. His solution has always been just to return their money or items, smile, send them on their way, and never deal with them again whether it was a buy or trade. Some peoples excuses to return things were ridiculous and weren't his issue. I would ask him why he didn't stand his ground and he would say "That guy is going to be a problem. I have enough loyal customers and don't need these people with their problems. I'd rather give him his money back and never have to deal with him again. It's not worth getting a brick in the window, or anonymously make some bogus story about my store online. We're both happy now". He was absolutely right.

As for legal mumbo jumbo, the holding period after a transaction has nothing to do with buyers remorse. There is indeed a time period in which you have to hold items before you can sell them. This depends on what kind of business you've applied for when acquiring your permits. Usually there's a used video game, cd, dvd permit you can register for that isn't a pawn shop. The rules aren't as strict for that permit as a pawn shop is and you're not generally required to hold things before you sell them. In any case, the time frame varies from location, but it's there for police use. It's used to easily trace stolen items and thieves before they can be sold over and over again rendering their investigation useless.

As for the issue of being 18+ in case anyone is wondering, it has to do with people being under the age of 18 unable to commit to a contract. It's there to protect young people from being taken advantage of. If you enter into an agreement or contract over goods with someone under 18, they can technically turn around and ask for their things back and there's nothing you can do about it. So having a person under 18 trade stuff in and then sign a piece of paper is useless. That signature means nothing till they are 18.

[backguard]

If he didn't have permission to sell the stuff for his brother you might have another issue on your hands. It sounds like he is just going to piss off though.

[bend]

double post. delete.

[DreamTR]

Darko: Thanks for that, I knew those laws were in place and we weren't a pawn shop, but there no way I am going to be writing down "4 pieces of Nintendo paper, Game Boy box, Game Boy manual, etc)

Basically, we do have record keeping but not for large buys, it's something like: BIG BUY SNES/NES/ETC.

Because seriously, what game store knows how many AV Cables and AC Adapters for Game Boy Pocket/Light/Color/NES/SNES/ they have lying around. Same goes with flea markets, LOL.

I mean, we do have an inventory of some things, but we have a 50 cent crap box and it costs more for me to deal with if I don't just toss most of the "crap" we get in to that.

Bend: There is no hold time on my items...it's 18 and over and that's it...we're not a pawn shop and we don't even adhere to the same restrictions they have, we're basically a mini game store inside of an arcade....not even a "large" game store...we don't have a credit card machine!

Backguard: it wasn't a "stealing" thing from his brother, that is for sure....

Darko: We do have ALL SALES ARE FINAL right above the register, never had a problem with that, we take things back within 72 hours if they are broken but we are lenient on that, no returns for unwanted stuff like GameStop does though...

[Bojay1997]

Darko: Thanks for that, I knew those laws were in place and we weren't a pawn shop, but there no way I am going to be writing down "4 pieces of Nintendo paper, Game Boy box, Game Boy manual, etc)

Basically, we do have record keeping but not for large buys, it's something like: BIG BUY SNES/NES/ETC.

Because seriously, what game store knows how many AV Cables and AC Adapters for Game Boy Pocket/Light/Color/NES/SNES/ they have lying around. Same goes with flea markets, LOL.

I mean, we do have an inventory of some things, but we have a 50 cent crap box and it costs more for me to deal with if I don't just toss most of the "crap" we get in to that.

Bend: There is no hold time on my items...it's 18 and over and that's it...we're not a pawn shop and we don't even adhere to the same restrictions they have, we're basically a mini game store inside of an arcade....not even a "large" game store...we don't have a credit card machine!

Backguard: it wasn't a "stealing" thing from his brother, that is for sure....

Darko: We do have ALL SALES ARE FINAL right above the register, never had a problem with that, we take things back within 72 hours if they are broken but we are lenient on that, no returns for unwanted stuff like GameStop does though...

I can't speak to Tennessee law, but I know in California individual cities have their own municipal code sections which require used game stores to comply with record keeping requirements. Specifically, in Los Angeles, every item taken in must be catalogued and a photo ID must be checked and photocopied. For certain transactions, a thumb print also must be taken. It might be helpful to check with whatever City or County you are located in to determine what requirements, if any, apply to your used purchases.

[Push Upstairs]

If he wants to travel 90 minutes to try and get his stuff back, then its a 90 minute trip to hear "You're SOL."

He had 90 minutes to consider what he was doing, the time it took you to look up prices, the time he took to consider your quote, all the way up to the moment he agreed sell/trade the stuff away.

How much time does one need to reconsider their trade?

[DreamTR]

I think the only place in Los Angeles that ever did correct record keeping was Game Dude, but the whole fact of the matter here is not a "legal" issue because he sold something to us, is over 18, and it was not stolen....

[Icarus Moonsight]

And even if it was stolen, you didn't steal it. This is really all about his self-inflicted butthurt. He came to you... How you are responsible for anything other than giving him the $50, which is over and done with, is beyond me. If he stole it or sold it without permission, he owes the owner he screwed fair market value or equitable restitution.

I agree with some things that have been brought up. Especially the documenting of buys. Basically treat all buys like they are an explicitly defined contract, no matter if they are large or single item. You don't have to have an itemized listing for a large lot. Just a general count and description of the lot and decent digital photos identifying the items bought and then the customer could sign a receipt closing the deal. Don't worry about paper flooding your life either. Just keep all the records electronically. That would suffice. It's a little easier than most think to cover this stuff. I'd guess the only step you'd be adding is taking the pictures...


Actually, all those stories about people calling the police on fast food places miss the point. Generally, the customer places an order and after they pay, is told they don't have the item they ordered available. So, the customer asks for a refund. The cashier refuses saying they will have to order something else because the transaction has already gone through. At that point, faced with not getting the food they ordered and being told they can't have their money back, the very frustrated customer calls 911. Now I agree that's the wrong approach and it isn't an emergency, but what is a customer supposed to do in that situation? Just walk away and let the fast food place steal their money? In this situation, if the items haven't been sold yet, I agree there is no legal reason to agree to the request, but it seems like good business to just return the items in exchange for the payment given that this guy could be telling the truth.

What reminded me was peoples knee jerk reaction to immediately call or threaten to involve authority instead of dealing with the situation themselves, like a grown mature person. Being annoyed is justified, being a whiny brat is not. It's attention whoring drama queens, at their finest/worst.

[Gameguy]

And even if it was stolen, you didn't steal it.
Possessing stolen property is still a crime, it doesn't matter if you're not the person who originally stole it. I'm not saying that's the case here, even if the games belonged to his brother they would only be considered stolen if they were reported stolen.

I don't see why the guy couldn't buy back the games if he wanted them...at full price.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I try to ignore and refuse to rely on prevailing law whenever possible, it's a farce of fail.

In a voluntary/restitution system, what I stated before is just one possible outcome. Because DreamTR has already sold items, full restoration can not be made. Seemed like the most reasonable outcome to me with my limited information, and put the responsibility on the party who initiated the problem situation. Seems pretty fair.

What I mean by restitution is this: Your window unintentionally gets broken by a person. To determine fair restitution, consider the situation as a trade agreement rather than an accident and follow through the process. A sample;

This someone approaches you, "I'm going to break your window. If I give you a dollar are we square?"
Of course, you'd say, "No way! That's not near enough for the trouble."
Insufficient restitution.

"What if I gave you a million dollars?"
"In that case, you can break them all if you want! The neighbors have windows too. Might want to talk to them next."
Too much restitution.

"Well, I don't have a million, so how about a hundred dollars for the one?"
"I can live with that, I suppose. I can get the pane replaced for about $70 and clean up the mess and have a little left over for my time and trouble."
Fair restitution.

Is this legal system going to hunt down every one that bought something out of this lot if it's stolen? Naw. And the $75 "break your window offer" DreamTR considers insufficient, and I'm sure that the person it was "stolen?" from would have a similar estimation.

That's all conjecture though. More likely the guy is trying to use the law as a club to get what he wants because he sucks at trading and life.

[bradd]

Possessing stolen property is still a crime, it doesn't matter if you're not the person who originally stole it. I'm not saying that's the case here, even if the games belonged to his brother they would only be considered stolen if they were reported stolen.

I don't see why the guy couldn't buy back the games if he wanted them...at full price.

how would you prove the property was stolen? two brothers, both say they own the same pile of old games, unless there are receipts with names on them how could anyone prove they were stolen property?

i had a friend who had his guitar stolen. he reported it stolen and provided a description but had no receipt or serial number. low and behold a day later it turned up in the pawn shop. cops gave him a call and worked out a deal, he bought it back from the pawn shop for exactly what the shop owner paid the guy who stole it. cops said the only other option would be to take it to court, which would be more time consuming and expensive than just paying the $50 the thief sold it for.

[emceelokey]

If he didn't have permission to sell the stuff for his brother you might have another issue on your hands. It sounds like he is just going to piss off though.


It's not the stores responsibility to care about the history of what ever item is being traded in. All they have to worry about is if the person trading the stuff in 18 and has an ID stating so, so that he can legally sign over the trade. Granted, if it's something suspicious, they could probably just use better judgment and refuse the trade in, but let just realize that this store is probably processing dozens of trades a day and there's no way they're doing any background checks on anyone trading stuff in, especially for a mere $50, which I'm guessing might bring in somewhere around $120 in sales.

The guy drove 90 minutes with that box of stuff in his car to the store with the intent to trade that stuff in. You didn't force anything on him and you just did your job.

[Icarus Moonsight]

how would you prove the property was stolen? two brothers, both say they own the same pile of old games, unless there are receipts with names on them how could anyone prove they were stolen property?

i had a friend who had his guitar stolen. he reported it stolen and provided a description but had no receipt or serial number. low and behold a day later it turned up in the pawn shop. cops gave him a call and worked out a deal, he bought it back from the pawn shop for exactly what the shop owner paid the guy who stole it. cops said the only other option would be to take it to court, which would be more time consuming and expensive than just paying the $50 the thief sold it for.

That's another option. Thief still owes the guitar guy minimum of $50, but discovering identity and the cost to use the legal system to put a $50 lien on the thief's house/car or for a payment judgment is just not worth the effort and expense. As things stand, the guy is damn lucky he even got an opportunity to buy it back at cost.

But again, OP seems sure that theft is not a factor in his case.

I have a slight issue with the 18 is legal to sell thing. Under 18 can't legally sell property for cash/trade, but they can sure buy all they want if they got the cash (outside of age restricted goods). You get these logical clashes and you can't reconcile them in a sphere of natural law. Only conclusion one can come to, by that method, is by some odd twist of thought, children really are delegated to only be 1/2 a person with 1/2 the use rights of property. And notice it's not the total exchange of property that is restricted by age, but only the non-consumption aspect of property that is impinged. No wonder the consumer culture is rampant, it's driven into people as impressionable children and they just repeat those cycles of behavior. Consumption is good because it's universally allowed, while production and trade is bad, thus illegal for innocent children.

[Darko]

In response to everyone who is concerned with the age of 18:

In the US, each state is separate sovereign. This means that each state has its own laws concerning liability under contractual agreements including commerce laws, marriage, etc (apart from interstate commerce which falls under federal law). The age of maturity is set by each state (ranging from 18-21 in the US). This is why hotels, rental cars, etc. require a person to be 21 before entering into a rental contract.

Because age of maturity laws do not fall under federal jurisdiction, common law in each state reigns supreme. Common law is based on precedent (a judge's previous decisions in a similar case).

Let's look a Tennessee law as an example. In Tennessee, the age of majority is 18 (§1-3-105(1)). However, there is no age requirement for emancipation and in order for anyone under the age of 18 to take any legal action (lawsuits) against any party he/she is required to have a representative, guardian, or next friend (family member). This means that if you are 1) emancipated from your parents/guardians or 2) entering into a contract in which your parents/guardians are aware of/approve of, you are extremely unlikely to be found without legal liability when under a contractual agreement.

Contract laws are primarily in place to protect minors from entering into contracts which require future obligation (credit cards, mortgages, etc). It is not illegal to enter into these contracts with minors. It is, however, risky.

My point is this: if you exchange goods for money/money for goods with a person under the age of 18, you have very little to worry about as long as the dollar limit/value of goods is low. Contract law is not designed to safeguard children from trading in video games for money/other video games. While any exchange of goods/money requires a contract (implied), the contract is completed when the exchange of goods/money takes place as long as the goods are exchanged for a fair price (you can't rip someone off). Just because a person under the age of maturity sells you something of little dollar value doesn't mean that you can be sued or forced to break the implied, completed contract. Just don't enter into a payment plan with someone under the age of 18 and you should be good to go.

[Porksta]

Tell him to come in and grab what he sold to you from the shelves. Then when you have it all, tell him he can have it back for $X, where X is how much it all costs.

[Bojay1997]

In response to everyone who is concerned with the age of 18:

In the US, each state is separate sovereign. This means that each state has its own laws concerning liability under contractual agreements including commerce laws, marriage, etc (apart from interstate commerce which falls under federal law). The age of maturity is set by each state (ranging from 18-21 in the US). This is why hotels, rental cars, etc. require a person to be 21 before entering into a rental contract.

Because age of maturity laws do not fall under federal jurisdiction, common law in each state reigns supreme. Common law is based on precedent (a judge's previous decisions in a similar case).

Let's look a Tennessee law as an example. In Tennessee, the age of majority is 18 (§1-3-105(1)). However, there is no age requirement for emancipation and in order for anyone under the age of 18 to take any legal action (lawsuits) against any party he/she is required to have a representative, guardian, or next friend (family member). This means that if you are 1) emancipated from your parents/guardians or 2) entering into a contract in which your parents/guardians are aware of/approve of, you are extremely unlikely to be found without legal liability when under a contractual agreement.

Contract laws are primarily in place to protect minors from entering into contracts which require future obligation (credit cards, mortgages, etc). It is not illegal to enter into these contracts with minors. It is, however, risky.

My point is this: if you exchange goods for money/money for goods with a person under the age of 18, you have very little to worry about as long as the dollar limit/value of goods is low. Contract law is not designed to safeguard children from trading in video games for money/other video games. While any exchange of goods/money requires a contract (implied), the contract is completed when the exchange of goods/money takes place as long as the goods are exchanged for a fair price (you can't rip someone off). Just because a person under the age of maturity sells you something of little dollar value doesn't mean that you can be sued or forced to break the implied, completed contract. Just don't enter into a payment plan with someone under the age of 18 and you should be good to go.


Not sure where you attended law school (I'm guessing you didn't), but as a practicing lawyer, I can tell you that is some bad advice. The age at which you can rent a car, etc...has nothing to do with state law, other than the requirement that you be a licensed driver under the laws of the state where the vehicle is going to be operated and have valid insurance. Rental companies vary by company and even by franchisee or location and some have minimum rental ages as high as 25 years old and others allow drivers as young as 18 to rent if they pay an additional fee. Those requirements are imposed by their insurers or are corporate policy and have nothing to do with state or federal law.

The discussion about emancipation is absurd. The vast majority of young people are not emancipated and the chances of coming across one who is in any given transaction is very, very low.

As far as a valid contract, there are a number of factors a court will look to when determining whether a valid agreement was reached. Frankly, that's not the issue here. Even the guy who traded the stuff in agrees it was a valid agreement. Despite this fact, he wants to invoke the protection of some alleged pawn holding law and wants to cancel the agreement. Again, not knowing the local or county law where the transaction took place, I have no idea if there is such a pawn holding law or if it applies to places that purchase used goods from consumers for resale.

[Darko]

Not sure where you attended law school (I'm guessing you didn't), but as a practicing lawyer, I can tell you that is some bad advice. The age at which you can rent a car, etc...has nothing to do with state law, other than the requirement that you be a licensed driver under the laws of the state where the vehicle is going to be operated and have valid insurance. Rental companies vary by company and even by franchisee or location and some have minimum rental ages as high as 25 years old and others allow drivers as young as 18 to rent if they pay an additional fee. Those requirements are imposed by their insurers or are corporate policy and have nothing to do with state or federal law.

The discussion about emancipation is absurd. The vast majority of young people are not emancipated and the chances of coming across one who is in any given transaction is very, very low.

As far as a valid contract, there are a number of factors a court will look to when determining whether a valid agreement was reached. Frankly, that's not the issue here. Even the guy who traded the stuff in agrees it was a valid agreement. Despite this fact, he wants to invoke the protection of some alleged pawn holding law and wants to cancel the agreement. Again, not knowing the local or county law where the transaction took place, I have no idea if there is such a pawn holding law or if it applies to places that purchase used goods from consumers for resale.


I knew I was going to get flamed by an attorney at some point today :)

Correct. I haven't been to law school. Never claimed that I had.

I wasn't assuming that any person was or was not emancipated. It it simply part of that law in Tennessee. I agree that there is virtually zero chance of that ever being an issue for anyone on an percentage basis.

The fact that contract law really doesn't apply hear is part of my point. You're not entering into any type of pawn/payment agreement by buying a game from a anyone (which to my understanding is why the laws were created in the first place). I also never said that I knew anything about the common law practices there. I simply said that it's where to look if you had a concern.

As far as rental cars and hotels are concerned, how could the age of maturity laws not come in to play somewhere in the chain? I'm sure they're a concern for the insurance providers. I never said it was a direct decision on the part of the rental car business/hotel. 25 is the age at which most insurance companies drop the premiums a bit for most people, so the 25 and up makes sense there (assuming that those businesses see 25 year olds as less risky). I just don't see how it could have absolutely no bearing. But once again, I'm not a practicing lawyer.

The only 'advice' I gave was to put a sign up in the store concerning trade policies and keep records of the transactions.

Either way, this is way off topic. I think everyone can agree that no one has anything to worry about in the "Crazy Trade-In Story".

[NintendoPower88]

great thread

[Bojay1997]

I knew I was going to get flamed by an attorney at some point today :)

Correct. I haven't been to law school. Never claimed that I had.

I wasn't assuming that any person was or was not emancipated. It it simply part of that law in Tennessee. I agree that there is virtually zero chance of that ever being an issue for anyone on an percentage basis.

The fact that contract law really doesn't apply hear is part of my point. You're not entering into any type of pawn/payment agreement by buying a game from a anyone (which to my understanding is why the laws were created in the first place). I also never said that I knew anything about the common law practices there. I simply said that it's where to look if you had a concern.

As far as rental cars and hotels are concerned, how could the age of maturity laws not come in to play somewhere in the chain? I'm sure they're a concern for the insurance providers. I never said it was a direct decision on the part of the rental car business/hotel. 25 is the age at which most insurance companies drop the premiums a bit for most people, so the 25 and up makes sense there (assuming that those businesses see 25 year olds as less risky). I just don't see how it could have absolutely no bearing. But once again, I'm not a practicing lawyer.

The only 'advice' I gave was to put a sign up in the store concerning trade policies and keep records of the transactions.

Either way, this is way off topic. I think everyone can agree that no one has anything to worry about in the "Crazy Trade-In Story".


Actually, whenever you buy or sell something, a contractual relationship is generally formed, the duration of which may vary. For example, in many states, if you sell merchandise to a consumer, a warranty may attach which may be implied or express or both. In this case, a contractual relationship was formed whereby the seller agreed to give the buyer the games and other items in exchange for payment. Unless the law in the jurisdiction provides otherwise, the contract was fully completed at the time the money and games were exchanged.

On the rental cars, as I said, you have to be of legal driving age and have valid insurance. Generally, in most states, that occurs at 16 at the earliest and in some cases 18.

I disagree with you that there is nothing to worry about here. If it turns out the items were stolen or there is a hold period or other regulations applying to used purchases in the jurisdiction, this seller may have a valid claim. The fact that the store isn't keeping records of every item that comes in could be a huge problem, especially if this guy really pushes the matter. In any event, perhaps it will all blow over or maybe this guy will actually show up and press his claim. Only time will tell.

[kedawa]

I can't believe you guys are even discussing this.
If selling the stuff was a mistake, then the customer can deal with the consequences.
Tell the guy to grow up and fuck off.

[nhm]

Possessing stolen property is still a crime, it doesn't matter if you're not the person who originally stole it.

Ummm......no.

[Darko]

Actually, whenever you buy or sell something, a contractual relationship is generally formed, the duration of which may vary. For example, in many states, if you sell merchandise to a consumer, a warranty may attach which may be implied or express or both. In this case, a contractual relationship was formed whereby the seller agreed to give the buyer the games and other items in exchange for payment. Unless the law in the jurisdiction provides otherwise, the contract was fully completed at the time the money and games were exchanged.

Which is the implied contract that I spoke of previously.


On the rental cars, as I said, you have to be of legal driving age and have valid insurance. Generally, in most states, that occurs at 16 at the earliest and in some cases 18.

I've never head of a rental car company providing a car to anyone under the age of at least 18, if not 21, unless it's through an insurance provider (say you wrecked your car and you have coverage including a rental car while yours is getting fixed). The need for a license and insurance to rent a car makes complete sense, but why would it make sense to rent out anything (under contract) with someone under the age of 18 (21 in some states). You're essentially taking out a credit with the rental company when you sign the rental agreement for the car. That just seems like the opposite of common sense to me.


I disagree with you that there is nothing to worry about here. If it turns out the items were stolen or there is a hold period or other regulations applying to used purchases in the jurisdiction, this seller may have a valid claim. The fact that the store isn't keeping records of every item that comes in could be a huge problem, especially if this guy really pushes the matter. In any event, perhaps it will all blow over or maybe this guy will actually show up and press his claim. Only time will tell.

Let's assume the items were stolen. The original owner would have to have some sort of proof of purchase/serial numbers of everything that was sold, right? At the very least, some sort of marking (maybe a name written somewhere on the games) proving that they were his/hers to begin with. THEN, I would assume that he/she would still be obligated to prove that the items were actually stolen, and not traded/sold to the person who brought them into the store.

I agree that the record keeping is very important. I would keep some sort of log of absolutely everything that a person brings in for sale/trade. But that's just me.

I'm assuming the guy isn't going to pay for an attorney over $100-$200 retail in a bunch of old gaming stuff. If he was pissed off enough and had money and time to waste I suppose he might. That, however, seems highly unlikely.

[Bojay1997]

Which is the implied contract that I spoke of previously.



I've never head of a rental car company providing a car to anyone under the age of at least 18, if not 21, unless it's through an insurance provider (say you wrecked your car and you have coverage including a rental car while yours is getting fixed). The need for a license and insurance to rent a car makes complete sense, but why would it make sense to rent out anything (under contract) with someone under the age of 18 (21 in some states). You're essentially taking out a credit with the rental company when you sign the rental agreement for the car. That just seems like the opposite of common sense to me.



Let's assume the items were stolen. The original owner would have to have some sort of proof of purchase/serial numbers of everything that was sold, right? At the very least, some sort of marking (maybe a name written somewhere on the games) proving that they were his/hers to begin with. THEN, I would assume that he/she would still be obligated to prove that the items were actually stolen, and not traded/sold to the person who brought them into the store.

I agree that the record keeping is very important. I would keep some sort of log of absolutely everything that a person brings in for sale/trade. But that's just me.

I'm assuming the guy isn't going to pay for an attorney over $100-$200 retail in a bunch of old gaming stuff. If he was pissed off enough and had money and time to waste I suppose he might. That, however, seems highly unlikely.

I agree, but in most states, small claims court is very cheap to file in and requires almost no paperwork to initiate a case. You're also correct that the purported victim of the theft would have to prove the items were stolen at which point the police might or might not take action. Frankly, if it was my store, I would just let the guy come back and trade his stuff back for the money. It's not worth the hassle or worry of having some psycho out there who could damage your reputation and maybe take revenge on you or the store.

[Darko]

Frankly, if it was my store, I would just let the guy come back and trade his stuff back for the money. It's not worth the hassle or worry of having some psycho out there who could damage your reputation and maybe take revenge on you or the store.

I have agreed with this point from the beginning. It would be the easiest/best way to settle the whole thing in my opinion.

[punkoffgirl]

I was going to advise to sell the stuff back, as basically you would have been earning $25 extra just for hanging on to it. However, since some items were sold, that's obviously not going to work. I think I would have explained that to him, rather than focusing on "I don't even know everything you traded in," which does, to me, seem a rather lame excuse from someone operating a business.

[Gameguy]

Ummm......no.
Really? Possessing stolen goods is legal now? Maybe the law is a bit different between Canada and the US but I know it's illegal in Canada. I know laws can vary between states and provinces but generally it's illegal.


POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY:

The criminal offence of Possession of Property Obtained by Crime is committed when a person has in his or her possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from a the commission of a criminal offence.

It's still difficult to prove or get a conviction.


Specifically, the Crown must prove: that (a) the accused had the property in their possession; (b) the property was obtained directly or indirectly from a criminal offence; (c) the accused had the intention to possess the property; and (d) that the accused had specific knowledge that the property was obtained directly or indirectly from a criminal offence. The Criminal Code states a person has something in their "possession" when that person has it in their personal possession or knowingly has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or another person. Finally, where two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.
I just wanted to make it clear that it actually would be a crime to possess stolen goods. Even if you possess stolen property, it's not like you would be convicted unless you knew the items were stolen.

Honestly I doubt that those games were stolen, even if they were it would be difficult to prove unless they had serial numbers or very specific markings like the guy's name written in marker on them.


There was an independent game store near me(across the street from EB Games) where the owner bought stolen goods while I was there. I was just browsing when 2 guys came in and wanted to sell some brand new Xbox accessories(I forget what they specifically were), they had price stickers from EB Games but it didn't seem suspicious at the time. 5 minutes later 2 employees from EB Games came in and asked, "Did 2 guys come in here wanting to sell some Xbox accessories? We just had some stolen from our store." The owner, while still holding the accessories in his hand replied back, "Uhhh, what guys?" At that point he knew they were stolen but he didn't care, he just kept scrubbing the price stickers off with Goo Gone. I never bought anything from that game store again. I refuse to support anyone who knowingly deals with stolen goods.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think what nhm was getting to was that an illegal/criminal act in question requires intent to buy stolen goods and that intent requires knowledge that the goods are stolen. Not knowing (with non-disclosure from the offering party - good contract stipulation here!) would be honest trade on the now possessors side, and an act of deception on the others. The illegality of possession of stolen property in that case, sort of falls apart logically. Because it ties the responsibility to the innocent possessor and magically absolves the guilty one for finding a patsy. Basically, the thief is now also a defrauder. Double the crime to eliminate responsibility. On its face it's a joke. Because honest trade requires that the trading parties have earned and rightfully own what they exchange.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

if he was a regular customer, i probably wouldnt see anything wrong with giving it back and making a small 25 dollar profit, better for you in the long run.


as far as everything else is concerned tho, fuck em.

[garagesaleking!!]

Reading this thread gave me a headache. Porksta said it best, let the guy come and buy it from the shelf for whatever you price it at. I doubt he wants all of it back anyways, he can pick and choose what his little brother really wanted. Its simple as that.

[spongerob]

Threatening with the law?

Well sir, I don't appear to have your games or your consoles, but what I do have is this...

http://gamingbolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/middle_finger.jpg

[Diatribal Deity]

About 5 years ago I would have laughed at this and probably had the same sentiments as mostly everyone else. Fast forward a few years when an EB (now Gamestop) opened in my town in a strip mall. To this day that store falls under a town pawn statute. They are required to hold onto every game traded in for a certain amount of days before they can do anything with them. They literally just place them in the back room until the waiting period is over.

Believe it or not the local authorities are very strict on maintaining this statute and frequently check the inventory. Obviously the system and numerous tags allow for easy tracking. The following is an article that addresses a similar circumstance in a different part of the country...but it sheds light on how not only states can be different but also towns and cities.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/05/10/pawn.html?sid=101

[theclaw]

He should have to buy back at full price, same as the customers who didn't bring them in. I don't think it's my responsibility to refuse to allow someone to intentionally waste their own money. They're not breaking any rules that way, just direly lacking common sense.

[Griking]

Ummm......no.

Ummm....yes

http://crimelawyers.org/Content340.htm

[Griking]

Threatening with the law?

Well sir, I don't appear to have your games or your consoles, but what I do have is this...

http://gamingbolt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/middle_finger.jpg


I hear that works real well in court.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Just curious; Did you actually read any posts over four words long?

[Oobgarm]

I'd think you'd keep a closer tab on what was traded in. Maybe not all of the boxes and miscellaneous crap/accessories, but at least the games and systems. I know it's time consuming, but don't you have some type of computer system to help facilitate that?

[Cornelius]

Even if there is a waiting period where the OP is, I seriously doubt its purpose is so the seller can think things over and decide to get his stuff back at the sale price. As someone else pointed out, it is so the police can check for stolen items. I'd be surprised if there is any obligation in any of those laws to hold stuff for the seller (except for whatever 'loan period' is in a pawn contract). I'm no lawyer, though.

[garagesaleking!!]

law vs ethics

[Cornelius]

law vs ethics

true enough.

[MachineGex]

Anything that has a serial number should be logged, along with a photo ID of the person selling it. More and more cities are requiring game stores to log in what they took in for the day(every system, game, cord, etc). I understand tracking serial numbers, but individual games, controllers, etc. dont have them and would take toooo long.

You really need to check with the city, not the state to find out what is required. Each city may have different rules. One city may toss you into the "pawn store" catagory, and the next could care less.

You could have just told him he could make a list of the stuff he sold you & wants back. Then you could refund that at your cost. No way I would let him look over your store and claim items on the spot.

The last thing you want is the local police getting involved in your business. Avoiding that mess may be worth returning the items at cost if possible.
Don't you have cameras installed???

[GizmoGC]

I think the only place in Los Angeles that ever did correct record keeping was Game Dude, but the whole fact of the matter here is not a "legal" issue because he sold something to us, is over 18, and it was not stolen....

Depends what County you are in.

When I ran a store, we were not considered a Pawn Shop since we didn't do over x amount of money each month and didn't pay out cash. We had no 'hold' period and the only rule was 18 and over and they had to sign. The same store in a different county had to take fingerprints and hold items for 30 days. They often would transfer stuff from my store to theirs since their inventory was pathetic.

Game Dude does (did?) hold items...but probably because they were in a shady area.

[diskoboy]

Tell him if he wants to play it that way, he can pick up his stuff if he repays the money.

Then tell him you're adding a 300% daily interest from the day he dropped it off, to cover the "loan".

If he thinks you're a Pawn Shop, act like one!

[DreamTR]

Well, it's a moot point, I never heard from him again after I called him out on the "law" of us holding used items for resale for 24 hours...I didn't mean for the thread to get into one big crazy debate, LOL...seriously, all this is over 2 game systems, some boxed Pokemon games, and boxed N64 games and some random paperwork, LOL

[Icarus Moonsight]

So, he was just a bully coward after all... Good to know and glad to hear you're in the clear.

Worse than having a long debate about this stuff, is getting jacked around with over it.

[ZombieK]

Well, it's a moot point, I never heard from him again after I called him out on the "law" of us holding used items for resale for 24 hours...I didn't mean for the thread to get into one big crazy debate, LOL...seriously, all this is over 2 game systems, some boxed Pokemon games, and boxed N64 games and some random paperwork, LOL
Didn't you know? Every Complaint thread starts a debate no matter how trivial.

hahaha anyway good thing he didn't call back. But if he does keep us updated of course.

[spongerob]

I hear that works real well in court.

Good thing the store isn't court. The guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[bangtango]

Tell the dude he can buy whatever stuff he wants back.

At the going rate you normally charge other customers.

[bangtango]

I have a friend who runs a small game store who has a couple of regular customers (unrelated to one another) who have the "seller's regret" syndrome.

Both of these guys trade in regularly and eventually buy back about 20-30% of the stuff they trade in, sometimes a few days later and sometimes a few months later.

However, they at least pay the going price for the games they are buying back and don't demand their stuff back for whatever pittance they traded in for. So they've never given my friend any trouble.

If anything, they amuse him because he tends to keep mental notes of what games those two customers trade in just to see how quickly they show up to rebuy them at full price.

In fact one of these guys tries to cover up the fact he is buying back his own games by implying he's "never played this one before" to save a little face.

[JSoup]

This is why we used to make customers selling/trading in over $50 in merchandise sign a waiver saying that we aren't responsible if they decide they want to go back on a deal. Anytime someone came in looking for their stuff, we'd generally be accommodating, provided they weren't being cocks. The cocks got a quick 'already sold, sorry' and that was that.