Elderly Customers Sue US Rare Coin

I'm a lawyer but not the evil kind (i.e., a tort or contract lawyer). So you have to take my opinion with a grain of salt. But I'm not so abysmally ignorant as not to have anything to say. That, after all, is what we do.

Still, it's hard to evaluate this case from this report of the pleadings. For one thing, the plaintiffs reportedly allege all this misleading, deception, and general wrong-doing on the part of defendants, but they don't say what, specifically, defendant did that was unlawful or tortious, and that resulted in "damages."

In law-talk, the claims, as reported here, are "conclusory." That is, they aren't facts at all, but conclusions the plaintiffs want a judge and possibly a jury to come to after having considered relevant evidence. But the pleadings apparently don't allege any actual facts. And without allegations of actual facts at the outset, the complaint would be defective, and dismissed before any further proceedings.

Also, notice that, because in a lawsuit you have to prove more than defendant's bad acts, but also, how those bad acts caused plaintiffs' damage, the pleadings here say that plaintiffs suffered "damages." But don't really say what those damages were; just that they suffered damage and detriment, etc. And again, they don't say why they want hizzoner to believe this; they just say so. Won't work.

I have little doubt that "elderly" persons were taken for a ride. It wouldn't be the first time. There is, however, an assumption of risk that anyone takes when making purchases, especially if that person is an adult. Ignorance of what one is getting into when one accepts an offer, even if one is "elderly," usually doesn't make a contract unenforceable, and, therefore, doesn't make for a very good court case. That's why these plaintiffs have to make the defendant's appear to have wicked intent. Thus the (reported) complaint(s) continuously use language like "knowingly" false, "deliberately" misleading, "intentionally" deceptive etc. They want a judge to believe that because defendants' scheme was so nefarious (and deceptive and misleading and deliberate and so on) reasonable and ordinary diligence could not have prevented these "elderly" plaintiffs from making what turned out to be bad choices. Adverbs, however, are not facts.

Without more, IMHO, this case is dead in the water.

Oh, and by the way, I should have put a smily-winky face when I implied that contract and tort lawyers are evil. That's nonsense, of course. The law is a learned and honorable profession. If you're a scumbag, you'll be one whether you're an attorney or not.

I'm a lawyer but not the evil kind (i.e., a tort or contract lawyer). So you have to take my opinion with a grain of salt. But I'm not so abysmally ignorant as not to have anything to say. That, after all, is what we do.

This is odd. I used to hang around a bar where the majority of people were in the law profession and many were attorneys. The above statement is what most all say. Is this a recorded message?
In actuality what is said is sort of the truth. This is similar to listening to one side of a divorse story. Ever hear someone say it was all my fault? I agree that there are numerous scam artists out there attempting to take advantage of the elderly and should be stopped. However, I too have had numerous calls and mail about such things as investing in coins, jewelery, land, insurances and probably a portion of the empire state building. I'm old but I also have a garbage can.

Actually it gets a bit more complicated than an adult buying something with consent in this case in some states that have protective statutes for senior citizens. In states with such statutes, the senior citizen can claim they were taken advantage of because of their condition etc. and nullify contracts, purchases etc. But this case I believe is in Texas and I am not sure for certain what exists legally there to protect senior citizens from these losers.