Unbelieveable Redemption Replacement from Topps!

[George_Calfas]

Is there really any recourse against Topps? I'm sure they have language somewhere on the redemption card that they may not be able to fullfill the redemption and any replacement made will be at their discretion, with no presumed monetary value.

Agreed about language regarding fulfillment, however, how can Topps (or anyone else) offer something that they do not have rights over? It is about the execution of a contract, a name should not appear on a checklist or have a redemption issued until after a contract is signed. The leg work would begin with tracking failed redemptions and finding out how many had contracts in place and failed fulfillment is on the personality rather than Topps or did Topps not have a signed agreement in place and "assumed" they could acquire the signature or the item of clothing.

In the case of Jimi, it appears that the item of clothing was too cost prohibitive to acquire and Topps can go grab some stickers and move on.

Did Topps offer the Hendrix assuming they could acquire an item? Was the item too expensive after the product released?

 

[BBCgalaxee]

I would love to know the process that went through.

 

[predatorkj]

I think somebody would have grounds if it could be proven somehow that any company chose to bait and switch purposefully and with intent. That is, use very high end , high dollar collectibles to promote or market a product and then when people buy the product, or redeem the cards for said item, the company sends them very subpar replacements as it was their intent all along.

Now I am not a lawyer and I'm not sure topps or any company really does this. But I'm also aware that there is basically not any enforcement for ethics or ensuring any promotions are followed through on. Point is, who is to stop any company from using a very intriguing collectible to hype up or market their product and all along, no real plans for the creation of said product exist? Bad part is, other than keeping track and seeing the same things never get made over and over, how do you prove there were never any plans on making any particular card? You really can't unless you worked for the company.

All I'm saying is I like topps and I always have. But I do believe the "opportunity" is there and has been for while, to market items that may or not get made. IMO, the best course of action is to do away with redemptions. If you don't have the product in hand to pack out, don't market it. If the product sucks because of this either don't put it out, or just release less products. You could even release products that don't require anything to be redeemed.

But at $70-$100 a box on stuff, and that's the low end, I don't like IOU's.

 

[Erich]

I get more and more jaded by this hobby every day. I am so close to selling everything.

 

[magicpapa]

♫♫ Purple haze all in my eyes
don't know if it's day or night
you've got me blowin', blowin' my mind
is it tomorrow or just the end of time♫♫

 

[sportscardtheory]

This is why I never buy redemption cards... ever.

 

[joey12508]

topps redemptions are such a joke there sad. they just don't give a f*** as along as people still but there stuff.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

See my sig.

 

[hive17]

See my sig.

Except that, when you call Topps and ask for a replacement, every single CS rep says they will replace the card in question with a card of equal VALUE.

They actually have representatives implicitly putting a VALUE on each card that is called about.

 

[nyc3]

I pulled then bought another redemption for a BB King Autograph from american pie. The card was a major card in the set. Needless to say the card was never made and when I got to speak to Mr. King he said he agreed to sign 30 cards for x amount. Then about 2,500 stickers showed up. They contacted Topps and Topps ignored them. So Mr. King told them to F off.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Except that, when you call Topps and ask for a replacement, every single CS rep says they will replace the card in question with a card of equal VALUE.

They actually have representatives implicitly putting a VALUE on each card that is called about.

Except Topps isn't the one assigning the value. If it was, any replacement conceivably could be replaced by a card that COSTS the same amount it cost Topps to make as the card that is to be replaced..

 

[Pinbreaker]

I recently got a Gary Carter Auto /199 for my 2011 A&G Framed Mini Auto of Guy Bluford..

I didn't pay much, but I bought it because of who he was.. Bass-tards!

 

[hive17]

Except Topps isn't the one assigning the value. If it was, any replacement conceivably could be replaced by a card that COSTS the same amount it cost Topps to make as the card that is to be replaced..

Who cares where the value comes from?

The fact is, Topps recognizes that their cards have value above and beyond cost; they say exactly as much when you talk to a rep. That statement in your sig is directly contravened by every Topps CS anyone has ever talked to.

If they were to live by the letter of that statement, then they could replace any one card with any other card. When the card is put into a pack, it has no value, simply a cost (total number of cards divided by the total cost of the print-run). Every card, regardless of autograph, GU item or serial number, costs a tiny fraction of the entire cost of the release. Clearly, that is not the case.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Who cares where the value comes from?

The fact is, Topps recognizes that their cards have value above and beyond cost; they say exactly as much when you talk to a rep. That statement in your sig is directly contravened by every Topps CS anyone has ever talked to.

If they were to live by the letter of that statement, then they could replace any one card with any other card. When the card is put into a pack, it has no value, simply a cost (total number of cards divided by the total cost of the print-run). Every card, regardless of autograph, GU item or serial number, costs a tiny fraction of the entire cost of the release. Clearly, that is not the case.

Its not the case to you, perhaps, but Topps already stated its policy - you're simply interpreting it incorrectly.

It doesn't seem like you know how replacements are assigned value, do you know?

 

[James52411]

In Topps' defense, both were phenoms who did a lot of drugs.

 

[predatorkj]

Its not the case to you, perhaps, but Topps already stated its policy - you're simply interpreting it incorrectly.

It doesn't seem like you know how replacements are assigned value, do you know?

No because a Jimi Hendrix anything has to cost more for topps to secure than what was sent out as a replacement. On their end. Interpret things however you may want. But if I was owed...let's say a Bryce Harper patch auto, and they send me a Gary Carter auto, I'm just going to have to guess the price differential is big on their end, and on ebay. Even topps doesn't necessarily get a discount when having athletes sign or making particular cards.

 

[Ty Hope]

One more redemption to be replaced and I am DONE with Topps! Only reason I haven't had it replaced yet (Mike Mussina 2013 auto) is because not enough time has gone by.

I will never redeem another redemption card from Topps. Never. You can only disrespect the customer so many times.

 

[mjbuchanan80]

Sure wish there was a lawyer on these boards ...

Sent from my LG-P999 using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[VandyDan]

I'm not a lawyer, only a law school grad (woo hoo bar review) and I go back and forth on the legality of redemption cards. I think advertising as included a card that they haven't even begun contracting for (and eventually don't even give reasonable efforts to maintain) is violative of something.

But as to expired redemptions, replacement, etc, I think they are perfectly legal for the following reasons:

1. Purchasers of the product know that they are in there (or rather, a reasonable, habitual purchaser of their products should, which strikes me as enough)

2. No one purchases a box in order to obtain a particular card, so it isn't as though they are saying 'this includes a pujols autograph' on the outside, and then you get doc gooden as a replacement. (when it says "contains two autos" and you get 1 auto and an IOU, I think this is fine. Its like receiving a check)

3. Receivers of redemption cards from packs have an opportunity to mitigate (sell the dang thing)

4. Secondary purchasers of redemptions assume the risk of non-fulfillment.

5. By the language of the card, Topps fulfills them (they might calculate value like a *******, but they abide by a reasonable construction of the redemption terms)

I think of redemptions like checks or IOUs and Topps as a guy that bounces checks...a LOT. there isn't anything obviously illegal about redemptions per se, but one has to seriously doubt Topps' creditworthiness.

In terms of voiding expired redemptions, I think this is legally fine. Bad business to be sure (that they make them so short and don't offer replacements of any stripe), but legal. Again, like a paycheck that must be cashed within a certain time, an option contract on a stock, etc. It promotes a company's ability to have a degree of certainty in their affairs (after 2014, we will not be dealing with 2010 Bowman anymore). Now, I think that fulfilling redemptions is not particularly onerous, but again, it is only bad business, not illegal.

Short version: redemptions=checks, meaning they are only as good as the person writing them (here, bad). Checks are not illegal, nor is time limiting checks.

 

[hive17]

Its not the case to you, perhaps, but Topps already stated its policy - you're simply interpreting it incorrectly.

It doesn't seem like you know how replacements are assigned value, do you know?

No, I'm simply going off of what I have been told by reps that I have talked to first-hand. They assign a VALUE to the replacement card based off of current Beckett VALUE. They say the word "VALUE". They attach a VALUE to the card not being delivered, and they replace that card with a different card of equal VALUE. They assign VALUE to 2 cards during the process. Is that clear enough for you? I'm sorry you're the one having trouble figuring that out.

Thus, that statement in your sig is nullified when they, after the product has been released, represent that the missing cards have a VALUE beyond just the cost of making a card that is part of a larger release.

Are you tired of being wrong yet, or do you want to keep looking foolish?