Legal Case Study Analysis

Fitl vs. Strek Law Case Study Facts: The plaintiff -- Mr. James G. Fitl -- attended a sports card and memorabilia show in San Francisco, California, where the defendant -- Mr. Mark Strek -- was operating a sales exhibit. The plaintiff elected to purchase a 1952 Mickey Mantle Topps baseball card from the defendant for a total price of $17,750, which is commensurate with the card's rarity and market value.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant had represented the card to be in what is considered "near-mint condition" within the sports card industry. Upon having the card delivered to him in Omaha, Nebraska, the plaintiff secured the item in a safe-deposit box for a period of two years, upon which the plaintiff decided to send the card to Professional Sports Authenticators (PSA). Recognized as the leading authentication and grading service for sports cards, PSA is used by collectors and vendors alike to determine the quality and condition of sports cards.

After inspection, PSA reported to the plaintiff that his Mickey Mantle card had been deemed ungradable due to clear evidence of discoloration and doctoring. Not more than a month later, the plaintiff corresponded with the defendant to make him aware of plans to pursue "legal methods" in hopes of obtaining equitable resolution to their dispute.

In reply to the complaint, the defendant informed the plaintiff that he should have elected to return the damaged card in a timely fashion, in which case the defendant ostensible would have challenged his own source of sale and rectified the situation accordingly. Furthermore, the defendant contended that the industry-accepted grace period for the unconditional return of a card spanned between 7 days and 1 month, meaning the plaintiff had waited too long in seeking redress. The plaintiff then sent his card to ASA Accugrade, Inc.

(ASA) in hopes of obtaining a second opinion, and ASA also determined that the card had been refinished and trimmed in effort to conceal previous damage.

Issues: The question raised by this case concerns whether or not it should be considered reasonable for a buyer to notify a seller of a breach after a lengthy duration of time has elapsed in the interim, and when an independent investigation is necessary to determine that said breach has indeed occurred? Analysis: Steve Orand, a representative of PSA, testified that the damage to the plaintiff's Mickey Mantle baseball card was clearly evident, as were signs that efforts had been made to conceal such damage from potential buyers.

Orand also testified that in the sports memorabilia industry lifetime guarantees are considered standard, especially when the item procured is especially rare or valuable. The court found that the plaintiff had notified the defendant promptly after becoming aware that the card was altered -- and thus devoid of value -- and that the plaintiff had notified the defendant as to the nature of the defect within a reasonable time after discovery was made. In the case of Cao v. Nguyen No.

S-98-975 (2000), this court ruled that "a party is justified.