Milsub Moral Dilema What Would You Do???

[DWdrummer]

I was in this position but with a firearm not a watch. I was in a pawn shop, and a little old lady came in. She unwrapped a leather holster and pulled out a Colt 1911 .45 automatic. She said her husband died and she found it with his things.

He had carried it during the war, came home and went on with normal life and put it away for all those years. It was near mint, original condition.

The jerk tried to pay her $500 for it, which she thought was great. I stepped right in and pulled her aside and corrected him, and told her it was likely worth closer to $5K in that condition with an original holster etc. Those old 1911's are extremely collectible. He flipped out and threw me out of his shop.

I feel good that I did that, even now. I didnt want to shop there anyway.

[CPTL]

This is a tough one.

Information is worth money. You pay a real estate agent, securities broker, or attorney to use information--specialized information that they have and you don't--so that you can gain a financial benefit. You do it because the value of the applied knowledge is worth more than the cost of the professional's services.

In this case, the information about the rarity and collectibility of the watch--information only a relative few have--is worth many tens of thousands of dollars. Do you have an obligation to tell this person?

Change the facts a little. Someone is selling their 16710 Z-serial. It has been worn only a few times, and they bought it new (with a decent discount) at an AD for $4300 in 2007. Seller wants $3800 for it. Do you tell them that 16710s with the 3186 sell for between $5500 and $6500 on TRF, a relatively obscure and specialized web forum?

I, for one, feel that time spent on this forum is "education and training" WRT Rolex watches. The knowledge you have is worth something. (Many of you might be surprised to learn that you could probably testify in court as an "expert" WRT Rolex watches, at least with respect to some issues, as you have "specialized information and knowledge" based on "experience" that would "assist a factfinder.")

So...back to the 16710 scenario. Are you taking advantage of this person? Do you feel that spending a few hundred hours (or a few thousand, for some of us) entitles you to an easy $2K profit? Not to mention your TRF pledge membership status and post count gives you credibility in the TRF/TZ sales forums, while the seller of the Z-serial 16710 would be probably limited to craigslist, the local pawn shop, or E-bay (all places where they're far more likely to get screwed, and worse).

So...if this is a moral issue, then there should be no difference between $2K and $55K: either you are profiting from your knowledge, training, and experience, or you are taking advantage of someone.

[daveathall]

Like this;

http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums/viewtopic/t=89447.html

Its an unoficial site full of whinging squaddies, tis a funny read, if only they knew.

[Rscmaine]

How about this option - offer to broker the sale for him for a $3,000 commission?

First - if you buy the watch from him for $3k and his nephew has been eyeing the watch and knows what it's worth you have a civil suit on your hands.

Second, the nice old vet gets a nice chunk to help with his retirement.

Third, you get a reasonable fee.

Fourth, you sleep well.

I've done this on a much smaller level for a couple of folks.

[RebreatherDiver]

Originally Posted by Rscmaine

How about this option - offer to broker the sale for him for a $3,000 commission?

First - if you buy the watch from him for $3k and his nephew has been eyeing the watch and knows what it's worth you have a civil suit on your hands.

Second, the nice old vet gets a nice chunk to help with his retirement.

Third, you get a reasonable fee.

Fourth, you sleep well.

I've done this on a much smaller level for a couple of folks.

that is all well and good, Nat. But what if you actually want the watch for your collection and not the money?

BTW, I am heading up to Kennebunkport for the week this evening, let me know if you want to get together for a beverage (sorry for the hijack)

[CPTL]

How did the fact that the hypothetical possessor of the hypothetical milsub is a "war veteran" get injected into this scenario, BTW? If the watch really was issued to him originally, then it's just as correct to say that he is a thief of government property.

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by RebreatherDiver

that is all well and good, Nat. But what if you actually want the watch for your collection and not the money?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I have little doubt that if one of us -

"A noted collector and amateur expert in Rolex watches"

were to buy a $40,000 watch (for $3,000) from

"A nice old retired veteran living on a fixed income who trusted the wrong person..."

that there is not a jury in the US who would not award him triple damages along with the return of his (suddenly very sentimentally important) watch.

There is a thing known as "preying on senior citizens" and juries really hate it.

There's a fine line between getting a great deal and theft, but this hypothetical is WAY over that line.

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by CPTL

How did the fact that the hypothetical possessor of the hypothetical milsub is a "war veteran" get injected into this scenario, BTW? If the watch really was issued to him originally, then it's just as correct to say that he is a thief of government property.

Yup...he is...right along with the 1,000,000 other soldiers and sailors who kept souveniers from their time in the service.

Wish I had mailed myself a Jeep.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by Rscmaine

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I have little doubt that if one of us -

"A noted collector and amateur expert in Rolex watches"

were to buy a $40,000 watch (for $3,000) from

"A nice old retired veteran living on a fixed income who trusted the wrong person..."

that there is not a jury in the US who would not award him triple damages along with the return of his (suddenly very sentimentally important) watch.

There is a thing known as "preying on senior citizens" and juries really hate it.

There's a fine line between getting a great deal and theft, but this hypothetical is WAY over that line.

In California, USA it's called "elder abuse". But that's just a legal answer. The better question is the moral question. I've been surprised at some of the answers to a question that seemed so simple to me. The OP started an interesting thread.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by Rscmaine

Yup...he is...right along with the 1,000,000 other soldiers and sailors who kept souveniers from their time in the service.

Wish I had mailed myself a Jeep.

Didn't serve. Should have. We can't thank you veterans enough. Keeping a watch (or a jeep) is the least we could do. Crap, I've seen my tax dollars go far worse places!

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

Didn't serve. Should have. We can't thank you veterans enough. Keeping a watch (or a jeep) is the least we could do. Crap, I've seen my tax dollars go far worse places!

And that, Sir, proves my point. You would be very welcome on my hypothetical jury.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by Rscmaine

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I have little doubt that if one of us -

"A noted collector and amateur expert in Rolex watches"

were to buy a $40,000 watch (for $3,000) from

"A nice old retired veteran living on a fixed income who trusted the wrong person..."

that there is not a jury in the US who would not award him triple damages along with the return of his (suddenly very sentimentally important) watch.

There is a thing known as "preying on senior citizens" and juries really hate it.

There's a fine line between getting a great deal and theft, but this hypothetical is WAY over that line.

But on what legal theory? In order to commit (criminal or civil) fraud, or any other actionable tort under a consumer protection theory, you have to make an affirmative misrepresentation. (Or you have to fail to correct a clear mistake when you have a duty to do so, which is typically limited to sophisticated parties. This has gotten me thinking down a whole new line: do frequent flippers qualify as dealers/retailers for consumer/commercial law purposes?)

Have any of y'all ever seen the history channel show "Pickers"? You go to some old bumpkin barn and sift through heaps of junk. You find something salable, and then offer the guy $20, knowing you can sell it for $250. Fraud? This could be even worse from a legal perspective, because the person with superior information initiated the transaction, and they are clearly "professional dealer/retailer" as opposed to your average e-bayer or amateur flipper.

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by CPTL

But on what legal theory? In order to commit (criminal or civil) fraud, or any other actionable tort under a consumer protection theory, you have to make an affirmative misrepresentation. (Or you have to fail to correct a clear mistake when you have a duty to do so, which is typically limited to sophisticated parties. This has gotten me thinking down a whole new line: do frequent flippers qualify as dealers/retailers for consumer/commercial law purposes?)

Have any of y'all ever seen the history channel show "Pickers"? You go to some old bumpkin barn and sift through heaps of junk. You find something salable, and then offer the guy $20, knowing you can sell it for $250. Fraud? This could be even worse from a legal perspective, because the person with superior information initiated the transaction, and they are clearly "professional dealer/retailer" as opposed to your average e-bayer or amateur flipper.

In the facts as presented, older war veteran taken advantage of by person buying a watch for obviously too little money, the legal basis for action in California, USA, is "elder abuse" which is specifically designed to keep people from preying on elder people who become a "protected class". The concept that elder people should be checking computer markets, educating themselves on the value of things as though they were business people doesn't hold up well with many older people who begin to lose touch with critical business acumen decisions. This would probably not hold true for Warren Buffett, but then you wouldn't get HIS Milsub cheaply.

The legal question of whether you are legally entitled to buy something from someone at their asking price (assuming that it wasn't simply an error on the seller's part, like leaving some zeros off of an advertisment for a house, or car) is that it is legal in most cases. The Uniform Commercial Code in the US, and many state laws on "mutual mistake" can be used retrospectively to determine whether an unconscionable business deal should be set aside by a court of law. But for the most part, we live with our mistakes, as I well know having just finished a Class A office building that I can't get tenants for.....I'd love to undo that deal. My bad choice, my problem.

But this wasn't a "legal" question as posted by the OP. This was a "moral" question.

I would like to think that our sense of personal moral fairness would enable us to walk away from a "steal of a deal" EVERY time, for the sake of fairness and integrity. I'm also a believer in karma, and since I've lived my life along the lines of that belief, I've seen karma come around to save my butt (karma in the persona of people I was fair to when I didn't need to be going the extra distance for me when I needed them-- all in business).

Everyone needs to live with their own moral code. I suppose that's what has turned this into an interesting thread.

Plus I don't even like the milsub. Give me a SS Ceramic sub at Basel, please!

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by CPTL

But on what legal theory? In order to commit (criminal or civil) fraud, or any other actionable tort under a consumer protection theory, you have to make an affirmative misrepresentation. (Or you have to fail to correct a clear mistake when you have a duty to do so, which is typically limited to sophisticated parties. This has gotten me thinking down a whole new line: do frequent flippers qualify as dealers/retailers for consumer/commercial law purposes?)

Have any of y'all ever seen the history channel show "Pickers"? You go to some old bumpkin barn and sift through heaps of junk. You find something salable, and then offer the guy $20, knowing you can sell it for $250. Fraud? This could be even worse from a legal perspective, because the person with superior information initiated the transaction, and they are clearly "professional dealer/retailer" as opposed to your average e-bayer or amateur flipper.

I do think that many of us would qualify as both 'sophisticated parties' and/or dealers. I've done probably $100,000 in flips and swaps in the last 18 months...I would have no defense whatsoever.

This analogy is like buying Henry Ford's personal Model T out of that barn for $20.

[SLS]

Unfortunately with many dealers, taking advantage of an ill-informed seller happens more than you think. After all, it is how they make a living and put food on the table. One of the local guys in my area picked up a 1655 for $2,500 USD a few months back. Pawn shops have been doing this for years, and will continue to do so. As stated earlier, one positive about the age we live in, is that information is easily gathered by a few key strokes.
Scott

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

Plus I don't even like the milsub. Give me a SS Ceramic sub at Basel, please!

[whiskyguy]

No where in the OP's question does it state that the person with the watch is:
1) a veteran
2) elderly

my comments in no way condone elder abuse, should be taken as unpatriotic, or show my moral character.

Originally Posted by koronet-kid

Hello Guys,

This is a hypathetical question, would like know your thoughts if this ever happened to you.

say you were lucky enough to meet some one who owned an original military issue submariner, but heres the twist they dont know how valueable it is and they are happy to sell it to you for the price of a regular sub.

would you buy it for that low price, or would you pay a bit more, or would you tell the owner the true value. this should sort the men from boys.

my veiw is that if you have the knowledge and you can buy it at far less than its true value then thats ok. some might agree some might not just curious as to what you guys think.

regards

sean

[Green Arrow]

Originally Posted by whiskyguy

No where in the OP's question does it state that the person with the watch is:
1) a veteran
2) elderly

my comments in no way condone elder abuse, should be taken as unpatriotic, or show my moral character.

Agreed. Two levels of inquiry.

Hypothetical # 1. Old military guy with his original issue watch- possible elder abuse, possible disrespect for a veteran. Not in OP's post, just worked its way into the thread.

Hypothetical # 2. Non-defined owner, could be young, handsome, rich, watch dumb. OK to take advantage of his ignorance (or hers to be PC) with your superior knowledge since you're probably lawyer or physician (I'm just making this stuff up as I go along) and get paid for your superior knowledge? What's the dif?

My answer: You still don't take advantage and you earn karma points and a happier life for being fair. Not a legal answer. Not a money making answer. Maybe not all that "sharp" an answer. Just mine.

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by whiskyguy

No where in the OP's question does it state that the person with the watch is:
1) a veteran
2) elderly

my comments in no way condone elder abuse, should be taken as unpatriotic, or show my moral character.

You are right. We 'over read' the post, then spent an hour re hashing the facts and following links to get to that.

But I don't think anyone here cast any aspersions upon you, your character, or your patriotism- this is a purely hypothetical excercise.

Your original post got extended by the mob...

I've had that happen to me...

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=107491

In my case I got a hell of a deal from a Pawn Shop/Jewelry Store owner and STILL got accused of all sorts of nefarious stuff.

Don't sweat it - it just means that you came up with a good base topic.

[Volant997]

The hypothetical situation is not a dilemma if you are a moral person.

[CPTL]

Yeah, I took this thread down a legal route because it got me to thinking. Clearly, not all legal acts are moral; nor are all immoral acts illegal.

The consensus seems to be that it's immoral because it's a lot of money. I don't see it that way. Stealing either a candy bar or the cash register are equally wrong (morally) but punished very differently (legally). We tend to associate morality with degree, and this reality is embodied (though imperfectly) in our law.

Which is why I brought up the issue with the 16710. Few of us would probably object to getting a 3186 16710 at the prevailing rate for a 3185 16710 from a seller who doesn't know the difference. You're talking about a $1500 to $2000 (roughly 33%) difference in market. In doing so, we'd be patting ourselves on the back for having unique knowledge and market access. But from a MORAL perspective, this is no different from the MILSUB.

From a LEGAL perspective, they might be seen quite differently. Which is why I tried to think about it from a legal perspective. I'd love to hear comments on this; I'm not convinced I'm right.

[CPTL]

Originally Posted by Rscmaine

This analogy is like buying Henry Ford's personal Model T out of that barn for $20.

And not to pick hairs (cause we'd never do that here, right?? )

But the Pickers example ($250 item purchased for $20) is closer to the MilSub example ($30-50K item purchased for $3-5K) than your Model-T example ($1M item purchased for $20).

[valentine]

legal?? there is no MSRP for the watch! so how do you prove someone "took advantage" of someone else...thats complete BS. i could list my breitling for 1,000,000.00 and then say ..well...that guy is asking 1 million and they only gave me 1000.00??? im outta this thread..

[Gob Bluth]

I've bought watches before from local sellers for less (about $500 - $800) than the watches are going for on watch forums sales areas. I don't think that I'm wrong for not telling the seller, "hey seller, there is a website called timezone, rolexforums, etc where you could make $xxx more than I'm giving you. Now will you still sell to me for our agreed upon price?"

There is a big difference between buying a $4000 watch for $3300 and buying a $40,000 watch for $3000 in my opinion.

[SG 1550]

Well I believe this question was written for me, I actually do know someone who owns one. He has had it since I've known him and he "proffed" (profiteered) it back in the early eighties.
I spoke to him a little over a year ago but I did not mention the watch. I have no reason to believe he no longer has it. I have wrestled with this dilemma many times and still do.
It's easy to say that I should tell him..but talk is cheap.

[Rscmaine]

Originally Posted by SG 1550

Well I believe this question was written for me, I actually do know someone who owns one. He has had it since I've known him and he "proffed" (profiteered) it back in the early eighties.
I spoke to him a little over a year ago but I did not mention the watch. I have no reason to believe he no longer has it. I have wrestled with this dilemma many times and still do.
It's easy to say that I should tell him..but talk is cheap.

Tell him you know a guy who will give him $3,000 for it...

[robbonds]

someone offers you something that looks cheap and you take the risk and buy it and make a fortune than good for you!!! your knowledge and homework was put to good use..Too bad for him for not knowing what he has...Heck, maybe its a fake and he pulled one over on you! or maybe you are wrong about what he as...either way you take the risk so you get the reward...Im fet up with people crying because they dont know what they are doing...Take responsibility for yourself...

[Mockingbird]

Mmmmm, if he's a veteran, or elderly, tell him what it is. If it's just somebody who bought it for the price of a normal sub off of a vet without knowing what it was, or if its anybody but the original owner snap it up. It's yours for doing your homework about it, unless it belongs to a vet, in which case you should tell him, because he 1. Earned the watch 2. Most likely wasn't appropriately compensated for his service and 3. Risked his life to ensure that you would be alive right now.

Now if he learns this, and continues to sell it for the same price, take it. Who knows he may sell it for $60,000 and give you a % of it for telling him!

[Ed Rooney]

This is an intriguing question, but an easy one.

I would tell him the true value, then enjoy watching his eyes light up. I would also point him in the right direction to sell it.

[mborner]

Originally Posted by Green Arrow

But this wasn't a "legal" question as posted by the OP. This was a "moral" question.

It's also a hypothetical one.