Boy Sued Over Baseball Card Ethical Dilemma

Memo:
The initial decisions of our group on the Nolan Ryan baseball card case were split evenly on whether or not the care should be returned. There were 2 members (Amy Plastow and Darrin Neil) who believed Brian Wezesinski should return the card to Joe Irmen, while 3 members (Alyshya Cubean, Kelly Brudvik, and Madeline Wade) felt Brian should make the decision to keep the card. The final person in our group was on the fence thinking that morally Brian should give the card back but that legally Brian has the right to keep the card (Joseph Hanley). In the first discussion on Tuesday, November 7th we discussed everyone original decisions we walked through everyone’s answers and opinions on the ethics worksheet. Our discussions weren’t very constructive

until our second meeting on Tuesday November 14th when we analyzed the worksheets with the rubric to ensure how to go about making a group decision. Alyshya and Paige took charge and lead the conversation at first they had very similar opinions about whether the card should be returned or not but their ethical backings were different. Once the conversation moved past original decisions we began to discuss which ethical decision-making theories influenced our decisions. Amy, Darrin, Kelly, and Joseph all made notes on our topics of discussion that later helped us determine the main points for the basis of the paper. Making records of our discussion was very helpful in coming to a final conclusion of ethically what was best for the case. After having the opportunity to hear from multiple perspectives, we agreed upon what we felt to be most ethical and beneficial for both Brian’s situation and our group found that it would be best for all if Brian returned the card for the $100 reward.

Introduction
The article “Boy Sued Over Baseball Card” written by John Leptich, discusses the case of Brian Brian v.

Joe Irmen. At twelve-years old Brian bought a Nolan Ryan baseball card from Irmen’s card shop; Ball-Mart. The card had an estimated value of $1,200, but he purchased it for $12. While this might seem like an innocent mistake, Joe believes that to be false. Not only is the Nolan Ryan baseball card in question in near perfect condition, but Brian is an avid baseball card collector with an estimated collection of 40,000-50,000 cards and was likely aware of the card’s value. The card was sold by an employee from the jewelry store who was uneducated about the actual worth of the cards. Joe tried numerous ways to get the card back including making posters with Brian’s information and offering Brian a $100 reward to give the card back. The ethical issue is whether Brian should keep the card or if it must be returned to the shop owner. The group identified the stakeholders as Brian, Joe, the community, Brian’s parents, the lawyers, and the store clerk who sold Brian the card. The main stakeholders being Brian and Joe as the outcome affects them the most. Joe, because if he loses the case he will lose $1,188 while Brian, in the end, is the person who has to make the choice whether to return the card or not. The community is also a large stakeholder as this could affect the way Ball-mart or any other stores conduct business in the

future.
In this case, both parties have valid points supporting their arguments. Who keeps the card and what compensation might be awarded to the other party depends on the ethical standpoint of the individual. This presents multiple arguments, and after addressing the ethical conflicts from multiple sides, the group reached a consensus; Brian should return the card for the $100 reward based off of the Utility theory.
Statement of Topic
When deciding if Brian should give the card back there are a few key facts that need to be taken into account. Brian has collected over 40,000 baseball cards and has claimed that the Nolan Ryan Rookie card is the best card in his collection. Having this extensive knowledge of baseball cards Brian knew that the card he purchased was worth quite a bit more than $12. Joe Irmen offer Brian a $100 reward to return the card which is more than the original amount Brian paid for the card. The Ethical Decision-Making Process from Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics helped our group to analyze which of the five ethical theories were most important for this decision (2014). In the end, everyone agreed that Brian should return the card for the $100 reward based off of the Utility theory, though at first, a few felt that he should get to keep the card based off of the Rights theory.
Discussion
Standing & Point Source
Part of the group that believed the card should be returned made that decision based off of the utility theory. The utility theory entails doing the most good with the least amount of harm, it was quite easy to see that Brian returning the card would benefit all of the stakeholders even though Brian would lose the card (Griffeath 2017). The Ball-Mart would not lose out on $1,188 the could have sold the card for, and the community relationships would continue on a positive note. Even though Brian would have to return the card the $100 reward would give him more money than he would have started with. It was also noted in our discussion that if Brian were to keep the card this could lead to more people trying to take advantage of the stores in this town and this could also cause tension between the community and the business owners. However, a key factor that played a role in the dissenting opinion was that Brian has proof of the purchase and so this card is now considered Brian's property not Joe Irmen’s and so based on the rights theory Brian has the right to keep the card. In the end, we attempted to come to a conclusion that would do the least amount of harm while still respecting the rights of everyone involved.
Conclusion
Our group needed to find a balance between the utility theory which would mean Brian gives the card back for the reward and the rights theory which would mean Brian keeps the card. However, in the end, we all came to the conclusion that Brian returning the card for the reward would benefit everyone. When evaluating how the ethical decision-making process affects the outcomes of a case we realized that none of the theories are going to make both sides one-hundred percent happy, however, the theories have helped our group come to a compromise that would benefit the main stakeholders Brian and Joe.