Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolf
^^^ I'll just reiterate what this guy said, as it is a reasonable take on the whole thing. Everything else is just noise.
|
Except it's only a reasonable take on the surface.
If anyone committed false advertising, it was Topps. The person who has privity of contract with Topps is the breaker, not those gamblers who bought into the break. Therefore, the breaker can take it up with Topps. And repeatedly equating a missing hit with fraud is either an inaccurate understanding at best, or outright disingenuous at worst. This is a packaging error. Fraud requires an intent to defraud. There is no proof of that here.
Of course, the breaker has a business to run and a reputation to consider, so making their customers happy is certainly something they should try to figure out. But there is nothing about Harry's take that is correct.
Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk