Article about buying pins back on Ebay

[ChiOJenn78]

Ok ya'll-so this morning I was reading the Houston section of the Houston Chronicle, and there was an article in there about this woman who is a Kappa alum who has formed Keepers of the Key-which is a little group that buys back old GLO pins off of Ebay. They also bombard sellers of Greek pins to either please take the pins off, or please sell it to them. The article said that they had spent about $17,000 of their own money so far buying back pins. It also briefly talked about Sigma Kappa's policy about trying to get back pins when a member passes away.

The article was really neat-it focused mostly on Kappa though, since both the woman writing the article and the woman featured in the article are Kappa alums.

It gave me a warm fuzzy to read it though!! (I'll try and post the link, but don't hold ya'll's breath, because I probably can't do it )

[Kevlar281]

Originally posted by ChiOJenn78
It gave me a warm fuzzy to read it though!! (I'll try and post the link, but don't hold ya'll's breath, because I probably can't do it )

The Link

[MysticCat]

No need to post the link, ChiOJenn. The article, and a fair amount of discussion about it, is the subject of the thread NY Times Article About GLO Pins/Collectors.

[ChiOJenn78]

Ya, now I feel silly, since this was the same article that Killarney Rose posted a couple of days ago-oops!! I guess news is slow to come down here!

[texas*princess]

I think it's great what they have been doing to get their pins back. Sometimes I randomly search on eBay and it makes me upset and kinda sad to see GLO pins up for auction even though it's not my GLO. I don't understand the whole obsession with pin collectors and I personally don't feel it's right to sell something that not yours to someone else just to make a buck.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by texas*princess (in part)
... and I personally don't feel it's right to sell something that not yours to someone else just to make a buck.

I'm not a collector, and maybe it's a mistake to belabor this, but...

Why do you assume that the badges being sold on e-bay do not belong to the seller? Yes, I know that many GLO's have constitutional/by-law provisions or rules that badges should be buried with the member, returned to HQ, or given to a legacy, but many GLO's have no such rule -- the badge is the property of the member, period, and anyone who buys it -- say from the member's estate -- is unquestionably the owner of the badge.

As for the GLO's that do have such rules, if legal ownership came down to a court battle between the GLO and, say, a seller on e-bay, my money would be on the seller. I just don't see much chance of a GLO winning that fight.

[FuzzieAlum]

Legally, MysticCat, I don't think that's ever been tested. I don't think either the collectors or the GLOs want to spend that kind of money on a court battle.

To me it just comes down to a matter of respect. If a group doesn't want me to collect their stuff (be it pins or anything else), I feel it is disrespectful of me to do it - especially if I say I admire what that group believes and stands for. There are plenty of things in this world designed to be collectible (Olympic pins, Hummel figurines, Elvis plates) and lots of things that have become collectible but the makers don't mind (stamps, willow ware, old Coke bottles). There are so few things that are off limits, it doesn't seem like it is asking that much to ask people to respect this desire.

[MysticCat]

I see your point completely, FuzzieAlum, and up to a point I agree with it. All I'm saying is that I think it muddies the waters to imply that what sellers are doing on e-bay is wrong because "they don't own the badges to begin with." Maybe that's true in some cases, but in the majority of cases I'd say it's debatable at best. If one wants to argue against collecting, it's better to stick with a stronger, well-grounded arguments, such as the one you made.

[FuzzieAlum]

I'm sure there are a few badge sellers who know they are selling what is deliberately stolen property - but that is true of people selling anything, not just pins. I doubt that most pin sellers go creeping around campuses late at night, snatching pins from bedside tables just so they can make a buck.

I would think that particular argument would apply more to, say, a girl my age who signed an agreement saying if she quit she would return her badge. (I signed one when I joined.) She then quits but sells the badge on eBay. She has violated a written contact. However, this is not the majority of badge sales by any means.

[MysticCat]

Exactly FuzzieAlum. But take a case such as yours, where someone signed an agreement that if he or she quit, the badge would be returned to HQ: If that person (lets call him or her GLO Seller) ultimately sold or gave the badge to someone else (GDI Buyer, we'll call him, with the assumption that he is a buyer in good faith) in violation of that agreement, the existence of the agreement doesn't prevent GDI Buyer from having legal ownership of the badge. It just means that GLO Seller breached his or her contract with the GLO in question, unless in the agreement GLO Seller also agreed that he or she had no property interest in the badge other than the right to wear it while a member in good standing. At least, that's how it seems to me.

[FuzzieAlum]

I think that depends. Let's say I decide to sell my badge to Some Collector Guy but don't tell him how I got it. Then, legally, it *might* be his. But what if he buys it knowing full well about the contract I've signed? (Like let's say I sold my badge to you.) Does that change things? I don't know the answer, because I am not a lawyer. Basically, I am selling property that is not my own to someone who knows I don't own it.

It would be kind if an airline pilot agreed to sell his airline's 737 he is flying that day to someone. While the aircraft may be in the pilot's possession for a time, he does not own it and does not have the right to sell it. The airline finds out (duh, a plane is hard to miss) and takes them all to court to get the plane back. The buyer can't complain, "But I didn't know it wasn't his to sell." He's still required to give it back.

I don't know if this analogy holds, but that's the way I think of it.

[wptw]

Fuzzie, weren’t you the one complaining about threads getting hijacked and turned into a debate over whether pin collecting is right or wrong?

No, there has not been a court battle to date. Several GLOs have had their officers and/or attorneys send letters to ebay. Ebay of course forwarded these to their own attorneys for review. What happened? Well, ebay then proceeded to give fraternity and sorority pins their own category in the listings! So I’ll leave you to speculate as to how strong the GLOs’ legal case was. I think you all know the answer already.

Maybe it is a respect issue after all. I’ll tell you though, I think the word “disrespect” gets thrown around way too often. PETA thinks I shouldn’t be sitting here at my desk eating this tasty chicken sandwich. So am I being disrespectful to PETA by eating this sandwich? Or do I just have a different opinion on the issue?

As I’ve said before, I feel these badges have a life and a soul of their own that transcends some bureaucratic policy manual or bylaw that was conceived a century or more after the founders were first inspired to design a badge reflective of their ideals. In my view, preserving your badge in my library is a sign of the utmost respect to the original ideals and symbols of your group. For me, that outweighs the concerns of a handful of people whose feathers are ruffled over entitlement issues.

Is that disrespectful? No. It’s a differing opinion. And here’s another one: GLOs should spend less time worrying about who is allowed or entitled to have the badge, and spend more time worrying about whether the people who are currently wearing it, deserve to.

From the infamous NY Times article:
“But to [Mrs. Silzel] the value of the pins lies not in their history, but in their hard-won exclusivity.”
Search your feelings and ask yourself if this isn’t the REAL reason you’re so upset about seeing your badges in the hands of non-members.

wptw

[IvySpice]

Under the uniform Commercial Code, which is the law in every state, there are more protections for consumers than for dealers/commercial entities, and more protections for innocent holders of goods than those who take possession knowing the goods are stolen.

Here are two hypos to illustrate:

A owns a badge. B steals the badge and sells it to C, an antique dealer, who knows that it was stolen from A. In a suit between A and C, A would win because C took possession of the pin in bad faith, knowing B did not have title.

But if C has, in the meantime, sold the badge to D, a consumer, who had no idea where C got it, D becomes the legal owner and A cannot get it back from D. A consumer who, without notice of a superior claim to title, buys an article from a dealer who regularly sells that kind of article takes good title as against the whole world.

So unless the pin is listed as "stolen fraternity pin," anybody who buys a pin from a regular eBay dealer is the owner of the pin, free and clear.

Ivy (***** Law School '02)

[FuzzieAlum]

Thanks, Ivy. I realize I'm no scholar of law!

[MysticCat]

You make an A in Sales and Secured Transactions, IvySpice.

And there is also the contract issue with regard to ownership of badges. It isn't enough for an agreement or policy to say that a badge is to be returned to HQ upon the death/termination of membership of the member. Unless the agreement (whether an actual signed agreement or a constitutional/by-law provision to which a member has constructively agreed by becoming a member) actually states that a badge remains the property of the national GLO and is provided to the member only for his or her use while a member in good standing (or words to that effect), then there is not, I don't think, a basis for saying that the badge is not the property of the member. And as you say with regard to the Uniform Commercial Code, even if there is such an explicit agreement, if the member sells the badge on e-bay and the buyer is not aware of the agreement, then the buyer is unquestionably the owner of the badge. The national GLO could sue member for breach of contract, but it could only recover the value of the badge, not the badge itself.

So did you take the bar exam last month? If so, my fingers are crossed for good news in the next few weeks. Welcome to the bar!