The thing about payment and transactions is that everyone has their own preferences. Economics-wise, I might not value a certain baseball as much as someone else does. Therefore, I could concievably sell it for less than a more devoted fan. In this sense, the transaction was valid. The little girl valued the autographed ball just as much as the home-run ball. Therefore, in economics terms, she was indifferent between the two goods.
Now, there were plenty of allegations about coercion and illegal activity, and she wasn't in sound mind, she's a minor, blah blah blah. If this was true, then yeah it was illegal. If it wasn't and they simply convinced her without threatening or intimidating her, then there's really nothing wrong with trading one ball for the other. The law should reflect the economic realities of the situation.
There are plenty of questions about 12 year olds entering into contracts, was she legally able, whatever. The fact of the matter is, she accepted their offer when she didn't have to. The real question is: would she have traded the home-run ball for an autographed ball if it had personal, but not monetary, significance to the batter or team? I think she would. ...But would the parents?
Oh yeah and since she's only 12 and a minor, she's "not of sound mind" to enter into a contract? Does that also imply that she's not legally allowed to own property? Seems kind of strange, doesn't it. I'd have to look into whether or not minors are legally able to claim ownership of something.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was okay for the Phillies to ask for the ball back. Even though it was officially the little girl's property after she caught it, I still think that they weren't in the wrong to ask for it back. If she was old enough to attend a baseball game without a parent then I believe she was old enough to decided which ball she wanted and who knows maybe she wanted to trade because she knew how important that baseball was to the player.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the above comment. The Phillies were not in the wrong for asking for the ball back at all. I do not know the specifics of the case, but do we know for sure that the Phillies actually had to "threaten or intimidate" her in order to get the ball back? She might have been completely willing to give the ball back over on her own. We spent so much time discussing the morals of the Phillies actions that the issue of actually returning a homerun ball wasnt even really touched upon. I think it says a lot about our society of how greedy we are. Wouldnt it be a really cool thing if someone cuaght an important homerun ball and gave it back to the player, not becuase they wanted any kind of reimbursement for it, but just because they felt like it was the right thing to do and it knew that it would mean a lot to the player to have it returned.
ReplyDeleteI think it was fine what the phillies did. She was 12 years old - by that age you know the consequences of your actions. Even if you are "not of sound of mind."
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that it was in no way immoral for the Phillies to ask for the ball back. It is clear that they did not want it back for monetary value, they wanted it for sentimental value. It isn't as if she had caught a pot of gold that they wanted back because it was worth millions, she caught quite possibly the biggest milestone in this man's career thus far.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the little girl would have traded the home run ball if it had personal not monetary significance to her. However her parents might have influenced her to do otherwise since the autographed ball she received in return would have possibly had at least some monetary value.
ReplyDeleteI personally disagree with the above post the Phillies management knew what they were doing when they traded the baseball with the little girl. If the girl was older the Phillies management would of offer money they took advantage of the little girl. As I said before we are losing our moral values in society at the end of the day it comes down to greed and money.
ReplyDelete