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

[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, .

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.