Topps Auto'ed Gold Infused Baseball Redemption - SHOCKING UPDATE!

[Bob Loblaw]

Do you have a copy of that ticket? I would like to confirm or refute your beliefs.

This was the huge marketing item behind 2012 Topps was the GOLD RUSH and look for the Golden Ticket. I was lucky enough to receive one of these in Jan 2012, which was mailed and received by Topps in Jan 2012. No I have not settled or received anything for this ticket. The ticket does not say anything about Topps giving it the right to replace it with something else. The other thing that might put Topps in legal trouble is say WINNER on the ticket is does not say REDEMPTION. So it seems that this was a contest and now they can not honor the winning tickets. Very easy solution here if the truth is Mays will not sign the balls is, have each players sign 20 gold infused baseball each, and each winner gets 1 of each baseball and award them as a 3 ball set.

 

[VandyDan]

The ticket is exactly like the one posted just previous.

There is some replacement language, bottom left. "For any reason". Can that include supplier incompetence or unwillingness to take reasonable steps to fulfill?

 

[bongo870]

This was the huge marketing item behind 2012 Topps was the GOLD RUSH and look for the Golden Ticket. I was lucky enough to receive one of these in Jan 2012, which was mailed and received by Topps in Jan 2012. No I have not settled or received anything for this ticket. The ticket does not say anything about Topps giving it the right to replace it with something else. The other thing that might put Topps in legal trouble is say WINNER on the ticket is does not say REDEMPTION. So it seems that this was a contest and now they can not honor the winning tickets. Very easy solution here if the truth is Mays will not sign the balls is, have each players sign 20 gold infused baseball each, and each winner gets 1 of each baseball and award them as a 3 ball set.

actually it does. If that pic on the last page is the real ticket it states this
"substitutions of equal or greater value will be made if the baseball is unavailable for any reason"

 

[Bob Loblaw]

The ticket is exactly like the one posted just previous.

There is some replacement language, bottom left. "For any reason". Can that include supplier incompetence or unwillingness to take reasonable steps to fulfill?

That could include the fact that any redeemer has posted negative comments about Topps. Certainly it includes the above reasons. Heck, the increasing cost of gold could be a reason.

 

[isotopes4]

The ticket also says "one of ten" not "one of twenty".

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Ticket also doesn't say how much gold is supposed to be in a ball.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Ticket also doesn't say how much gold is supposed to be in a ball.

It infers that you're receiving a Rawlings Gold Infused ball. There's only one company licensed to make these.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

It infers that you're receiving a Rawlings Gold Infused ball. There's only one company licensed to make these.

Yes, like the one specifically used for the 2011 HR Derby, perhaps Topps was to have a specifically made/special promotional model with less (or more?) gold.

In any case these aren't terribly expensive anyway.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Yes, like the one specifically used for the 2011 HR Derby, perhaps Topps was to have a specifically made/special promotional model with less (or more?) gold.

In any case these aren't terribly expensive anyway.

Yup. I posted that link about 10 pages ago.

Bottom line is that Topps will do what they want. Period.

 

[MansGame]

Still amazed. I love the deadline of 12/31/12 on the tickets... pretty short window for deadline.

 

[mudflap02]

A lot of you guys in this thread are not making a strong case for your selection to the Topps Five Star Club.

 

[200lbhockeyplayer]

A lot of you guys in this thread are not making a strong case for your selection to the Topps Five Star Club.

Coffee + monitor = well played




Posted by witchcraft, voodoo and technological kung fu.

 

[swanssy]

A lot of you guys in this thread are not making a strong case for your selection to the Topps Five Star Club.

Congratulations sir, you win the thread. (or possibly a pack of archives)

 

[VandyDan]

That could include the fact that any redeemer has posted negative comments about Topps. Certainly it includes the above reasons. Heck, the increasing cost of gold could be a reason.

See, I don't think it could. I might be mistaken, but standard constructions of contract imply reasonable efforts to meet the requirement, no? Admittedly, I am assuming this is a contract (which it probably isn't). But isn't there an implied 'best efforts' standard, especially for unilaterally written contracts?

 

[vwnut13]

actually it does. If that pic on the last page is the real ticket it states this
"substitutions of equal or greater value will be made if the baseball is unavailable for any reason"

Equal or greater Value, not equal or value production cost.

Does the ticket have an ARV on it?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

See, I don't think it could. I might be mistaken, but standard constructions of contract imply reasonable efforts to meet the requirement, no? Admittedly, I am assuming this is a contract (which it probably isn't). But isn't there an implied 'best efforts' standard, especially for unilaterally written contracts?

Reasonable effort, I believe, but I'm far from a UCC expert.

There's the law, and then there's, "the law". ASsuming this ever got to a point where a Topps rep had to testify, they'll simply state that Mr. Mays was unwilling to sign the ball, and that we offered the 10-20 people a reasonable substitute.

Topps cannot force Mays to sign the ball, period. THey can offer what the value of the ball is -- but without the ball, it's difficult to tell the value. eBay cost for redemptions would be a potential evaluator of same.

 

[VandyDan]

Reasonable effort, I believe, but I'm far from a UCC expert.

There's the law, and then there's, "the law". ASsuming this ever got to a point where a Topps rep had to testify, they'll simply state that Mr. Mays was unwilling to sign the ball, and that we offered the 10-20 people a reasonable substitute.

Topps cannot force Mays to sign the ball, period. THey can offer what the value of the ball is -- but without the ball, it's difficult to tell the value. eBay cost for redemptions would be a potential evaluator of same.

I certainly believe that litigation would lose. BUT, I am also rather certain that Topps would rather not air its 'dirty laundry' about what it thinks reasonable efforts are, and its overall philosophy of marketing items that it has taken precisely zero steps to produce/contract for/contact. Additionally, they seem to not be communicating at all with their creditors (even if redemptions are not contracts, they do create a debt obligation) about the status of those efforts. It is absurd that I had to call and talk to three people about my redemption just to finally be told that they had given up on the player months ago. It isn't the results that bother me so much as the unilateral nature and the combination of ability to mass-communicate with redemption holders and a complete desire not to.

I dunno, I might be naive, but I do think that at base level, the public cares that baseball cards are being produced with integrity (even if they are not interested in buying any). I do believe that the potential negative fallout from having this (as well as any) redemption issue aired in a real public fashion and reported on would be tremendously damaging to their brand. It isn't like "owning the Mona Lisa", but it is like owning a very important part of Americana that many folks hold to be important in its existence, and a concept that should be passed on through generations.

 

[Brad Barber]

Yes, that is the same except redemption ticket except mine had a hologram with numbers on the right side of it. I did miss that little print about substitutions , but it is one mine too.I have the original sales sheets and the ticket is on the front and back of the sales sheet.


This was the made item and hype in this product.

Beckett News » Topps teases Gold Rush Golden Tickets

 

[Brad Barber]

Ok, I went searching and found there sales sheet.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I certainly believe that litigation would lose. BUT, I am also rather certain that Topps would rather not air its 'dirty laundry' about what it thinks reasonable efforts are, and its overall philosophy of marketing items that it has taken precisely zero steps to produce/contract for/contact. Additionally, they seem to not be communicating at all with their creditors (even if redemptions are not contracts, they do create a debt obligation) about the status of those efforts. It is absurd that I had to call and talk to three people about my redemption just to finally be told that they had given up on the player months ago. It isn't the results that bother me so much as the unilateral nature and the combination of ability to mass-communicate with redemption holders and a complete desire not to.

I dunno, I might be naive, but I do think that at base level, the public cares that baseball cards are being produced with integrity (even if they are not interested in buying any). I do believe that the potential negative fallout from having this (as well as any) redemption issue aired in a real public fashion and reported on would be tremendously damaging to their brand. It isn't like "owning the Mona Lisa", but it is like owning a very important part of Americana that many folks hold to be important in its existence, and a concept that should be passed on through generations.

There won't be litigation on this, unless to determine the value. And even then, I can't see Topps saying it's worth less than $750, or more than $2000. Certainly not worth litigation, which is why talking about "the law" is sort of pointless.

There is no way to get Topps to provide specific performance IF Mays absolutely won't sign. Now, if Mays will sign but it's for 2-3-4-5x his normal rate, that's another story, and would require testimony from Mays -- which, again, will never happen.

So, talking about this being litigated is as realistic as Gilmo and I moving to New Hampshire or Massachusetts, or one of those states that allow it, and getting married... which is why I said, Topps will do what they want to do. You can shame them, but I don't think they care tremendously about their public image.