A $10.00 S&W Model 36

[Ronald1]

Not exactly the same. First he (or his mother) bought an advertised item as teacups. If it was labeled "teacups and S&W revolver" then there would be no problem as everyone knew what was being sold.

As far as the example of buying books then finding a first edition, that is not a problem. You were buying a box of books, and nothing else.
I guess it boils down to how he feels about it. If his is not bothered by it, then there is nothing we can say to change his mind.

Suppose it was a box of books that he bought for $10. Upon going through it he found that one of the books was a rare first edition worth thousands. Would anybody be saying there is some duty to "go back to the estate" and ask if they really wanted to sell it as cheaply as they did?

In the context described - professional liquidation of an estate - I think the correct answer is that if the liquidator offers a box for $10, then ten bucks gets the buyer whatever is inside. Period. If there's a diamond ring in there, you've got a $10 diamond ring. Same thing if there's a gun. The estate owners had a chance to go through and evaluate all the stuff before handing it over to the estate liquidator. The liquidator also had a chance to check the goods they were offering, and see if there were any hidden "finds" in the various lots being offered.

If both parties failed to do so and thereby overlooked something of greater value (a rare book, a nice gun, a diamond ring) in a box they thought held stuff of lesser value, they should be the ones to bear the "loss" of not getting as much for their stuff as they might have if they'd been more diligent. I see absolutely no reason for a buyer to have the slightest remorse for finding and keeping anything they bought through the estate liquidation process.

 

[shakyshoot]

Buying undervalued lots is part of the game at estate sales and auctions. I have no moral dilemma when it happens in my favor, and I don't cry (much) when it works against me. I've bought pieces of glassware for $10 and sold for $500 because the sellers didn't know the value. I've also bought pieces for $100 that went right in the trash because I missed a serious crack. It's up to the auction house to go through the items and prepare them for sale. They didn't do their job. Part of the game, and nobody owes the estate or the auction house anything. It's a done deal once the hammer drops.

 

[RubenZ]

Jeez folks! First the family didn't do their job in knowing what they were consigning to aution. Second, the auction service didn't do their job in knowing what they were selling. And now some of you want to take it back to these same incompetents for moral reasons? Sorry...not me. I'm keepin' the $10 Md 36.

I agree, not to mention you take it back to auctioneer, I guarantee he'll just pocket it.

 

[ExcitableBoy]

I think that I want your Mom to adopt me. I'll get the papers prepared, Little Brother.

 

[mpikomy]

Since we are turning this into an ethics class, it was remarked by Randy Cohen "The Ethicist" that you have no moral duty to uphold unreasonable laws. Since I think we can all agree that the amount of paperwork and regulation on buying the gun in question is unreasonable the OP has no duty to go back and correct other people's mistakes.
Good find, way to go Mom for hitting up the estate sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crsides]

Not even close. Last I heard there were no serial numbers, nor federal laws concerning the transfer of fried chicken

We got the FDA doing the food thing, and my vet is bar coding dogs and cats, and who knows about chickens.

Charlie

 

[crsides]

Not exactly the same. First he (or his mother) bought an advertised item as teacups. If it was labeled "teacups and S&W revolver" then there would be no problem as everyone knew what was being sold.

As far as the example of buying books then finding a first edition, that is not a problem. You were buying a box of books, and nothing else.
I guess it boils down to how he feels about it. If his is not bothered by it, then there is nothing we can say to change his mind.

It was not advertised as "teacups". It was offered as a "whole box" and that's what she bought.

Charlie

 

[Texas Star]

Then, there's the chance the auction house will try to cover their mistake and claim that she took the gun from elsewhere on the table, stealing it. As-is, they are not be able to account for it.


If the family demands to know about the gun, the auction house may well claim it was stolen. That was the basis of my post. But if the family knew the gun was there, would it not have been set aside, marked as such? It seems they were careless, maybe just eager to sell off the deceased person's things and move on.


It has been my experience at estate sales that the families are usually pretty greedy if they think anything they didn't keep has any value. Garage sales tend to be more reasonably priced.


The company's insistence that the mother buy the whole box of cups makes me see her side a little better. Arrogance on the part of a negligent seller arouses none of my sympathy.


The allusion to a pawn shop won't fly. They rip people off as a rule, so I relish the idea of a pawn dealer pricing something reasonably, through error. And Walter Rego's billfold on the sidewalk also doesn't really compare, for it was probably lost. There was no careless transaction involved.


SIG P-220 spent a career as a FBI agent and before that as a USAF cop. I think he knows the legality of the matter, so I appreciate his posts. That clears that up.




But if the missing gun is reported as stolen, that opens a different can of beans, unless the mother can prove how she came by the gun. Personally, I think that if she keeps her receipt, if any, the police and DA may see the matter as too questionable to prosecute.


Unless the state requires a formal record of the purchase of a gun, the matter is probably ended. Private sale, not a FFL transaction. BUT is the auction house authorized to sell firearms? Do they need a FFL? If so, they'll probably be mum, unless they have such a license and know about the gun.


It 'll be interesting to see how this plays out . Maybe the best idea is to keep the gun, document how it was obtained and see if anything is said. If the family misses the gun, it'll be when the proceeds of the auction reach them, and that'll be soon. If the gun is never found in a search of the new owner's car if he has an accident or is just searched for something like a cop smelling marihuana smoke, etc., that gun will probably never be officially checked. If it's stolen in a burglary, it won't trace to the new owner, but unless he plays it straight and reports the loss, he also can't hope to recover it.

 

[Texas Star]

Last time I bought from KFC, I didn't need to fill out a 4473! That's the rub that needs some...rubbing, I guess.

This was apparently a private sale, not needing a 4473, unless the auction house has an FFL.


BTW, paying ten bucks for a set of decent teacups is a pretty good buy in itself. And suggests that the family is just trying to sell what they didn't keep.

 

[jake1945]

Just a thought, if driving behind an armored truck and a bag of cash fell out, would you keep it? Would you chase down the truck and return it? Or would you buy a new expensive car with it?

 

[Club Gun Fan]

Its not stolen. The mom bought a box and its contents at an estate sale. The sellers should have checked each box.

I was actually surprised it took so many posts before the every silver lining has a grey cloud posts began.

Enjoy your new gun.

I see your an LEO, or former. You advocate receiving stolen property.
I won't say what I'd like to say. We can "what if" this thing to death and there is but one conclusion. The gun is stolen.

 

[wrangler5]

"Receiving stolen property" is a legal phrase with a technical meaning that defines a criminal act. Is there anybody here with experience as a prosecutor who would charge the mother with receiving stolen property for keeping the contents of a box she bought under the circumstances described? (I prosecuted people when I was an Air Force JAG, but that was over 40 years ago and I've done no criminal work since, so I'm not going to opine formally on the matter.)

If not, we should stop talking about "stolen property," unless a serial number check reveals that the gun actually was stolen before it was sold in a box that contained teacups.

 

[Bekeart]

What dilemma?

What dilemma?

Different standards for due diligence apply to professionals (e.g. Auction service) than an individual. (e.g. "little old lady")

An auction service promotes/represents itself and its services as a knowledgeable and professional service. Similar to a gun store or auto dealer.

The auction service has/had a fiduciary duty to the estate hiring it.
Failing to fully inspect the contents of a box was a failure of their duty.

The buyer had NO fiduciary duty to fully inspect the contents before making an offer.
The buyer seems to have only inspected the top layer of the box.
Seeing items that were desirable and made an offer. All other unsuspected items were of unknown value. They could be a bonus or just trash to be hauled off.

Years ago at an estate auction I looked through several boxes of miscellaneous stuff. One box held extension cords.
Several were the cheap zip cords. Two 50 foot 12 gauge cords and one 100 foot 12 gauge cord were also in the box.
Apparently nobody else paid any attention. The auctioneer had been asking for opening bid of $5 for the miscellaneous boxes.
With no bid of $5 the price usually went down to $2 or $3. I made the opening bid of $5.
NO other bids. The auctioneer had a duty. I had knowledge.

If I walk in to a gun store and am offered an old 357 for $400.
I have NO DUTY to inform the dealer that it is a Registered Magnum before counting out the cash.
(Shop is representing itself as knowledgeable and professional.)

I do feel a moral obligation to inform an individual of their mistakes/misunderstandings.
There have been cases where I paid the seller MORE than the asking price; because it was the right thing to do.

Bekeart

 

[Kenny D]

My Way

I think I would try to find the family and follow Walter Regos' idea. Several years ago I would have just kept the pistol and thought nothing of it but since then I have gotten religion and my conscience is more developed. But that is just me. Giving more money to the auction company would be rewarding their incompetence.

 

[rog8732]

Weeping with joy for the buyer.....Weeping with remorse for a "crooked deed" ! All in just one thread.
I hate to get so conflicted this early in the day.

 

[shakyshoot]

Just a thought, if driving behind an armored truck and a bag of cash fell out, would you keep it? Would you chase down the truck and return it? Or would you buy a new expensive car with it?

I worked with a guy who had this exact thing happen, believe it or not. This was in the early 80's when we were probably making less than $10 an hour. And out falls a bag with $78,000. He returned it, and the armored car company made a big show of giving him a very cheapskate reward. $300 I think. I'd return it, but I don't think I'd try to run down the armored car. Too dangerous.

 

[ExcitableBoy]

I'm having a hard time with all the "morally superior and holier than thou" posturing, internet lawyers and kangaroo juries. Does it make you feel superior hammering on the man? What're ya gonna do... send out a posse and string him up?

Leave the guy in peace, for God's sake!

 

[Warren Sear]

I see your an LEO, or former. You advocate receiving stolen property.
I won't say what I'd like to say. We can "what if" this thing to death and there is but one conclusion. The gun is stolen.

We need a face palm icon. This will have to do for now...

 

[Warren Sear]

Wouldn't that gun have to registered to someone?
Denny

Nope. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

 

[JSR III]

WOW, lots of opinions. The way that I see this is there are two dilemmas here. The MORAL one and the LEGAL one.

According to the ATF information that was posted, one does not need a license to sell firearms for an occasional sale where one is not engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit. Certainly no profit here.

Secondly is the moral issue. Since it is fairly obvious that neither the family nor the auction company realized what was in the box, does the buyer have a moral obligation to go back and let them know the true contents of the box. I think that decision can only be made by the OP. I always ask myself, what will St. Peter say when I explain my story??????

As far as the gun being stolen, I have to disagree. I have been to auctions where boxes of wrapped items were sold as a box and its contents with no inventory being offered. If the gun was part of a box that was purchased as a whole, then the gun was PURCHASED and not stolen. The price may be way under market but not the buyers fault.

Is it possible that the gun was stolen by someone prior, possibly. One could certainly find a friend in law enforcement and have the serial number checked.

The one factoid that the OP left out was whether this estate sale was held at the Barrow or Parker estate??????