Generally speaking, most legal problems arising from collectibles transactions arise from items which do not conform to the seller's description of their authenticity, type, quality, grade, rarity, or provenance.

There are many traps here for the unwary buyer, and the key is to keep the risk of non-conformity on the dealer, so that in case of problems you can demand your money back or other compensation. The most important way to do this is by getting express warranties, which are assurances from the dealer that the item is what you want it to be. Warranties are absolute, meaning that in most cases the dealer is responsible if the items do not conform, regardless of whether the dealer knew they did not conform at the time of sale or was in any way negligent in describing the items. Because the risk of "honest mistakes" falls on the dealer, breach of warranty is a very powerful legal tool for collectors and investors in collectibles.

Express warranties may be in writing or orally, and are made directly to the buyer, as opposed to warranties which are implied by the nature of the transaction or by the seller's indirect statements or gestures. They are personal to the buyer, meaning that ordinarily they do not extend to subsequent owners of the goods. Under 2-313 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), express warranties come in three categories: (1) affirmations of fact or promises relating to the goods; (2) descriptions of the goods; (3) a sample or model. If any of the above become "part of the basis of the bargain" between buyer and seller, the seller is expressly warranting that the goods will conform.

Whether or not particular statements by a seller are warranties is sometimes tricky, and over the years certain interpretations have been imposed upon the UCC's language. Dealers are permitted to engage in "puffing" or "statements of opinion", and are not legally bound to those statements. Section 2-313 of the UCC defines a "statement of opinion" as "an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods". In cases involving everything from used cars to bull calves, the courts have analyzed salesmen's pitches to determine whether or not particular statements became part of the purchase contract or were merely non-binding opinions. Judges look at whether statements are the type on which purchasers in particular markets reasonably rely in making purchases, and whether they are such that they can be proven to have been true or false at the time of purchase.

Here's an example. Most of us would agree that were we to buy a coin from a dealer who tells us it is "a real nice Morgan dollar," we would hold the dealer to the fact that the coin is a Morgan dollar, but not that it is "real nice." On the other hand, a dealer's statement in writing that a particular coin is the "finest known" example of a particular date or variety would probably be binding on the dealer, because that term is reasonably relied upon by rare coin buyers. Generally speaking, statements relating to the quality, rarity or provenance of collectible items are far more likely to be considered warranties and not opinions if they are unequivocal, in writing, and made prior to the purchase.

All warranties created by the UCC can be disclaimed by dealers, but the disclaimers must conform to UCC requirements. Where possible, disclaimers will be interpreted so that they are consistent with language in other relevant documents from the dealer that create warranties. This means that a disclaimer may not work if other portions of the dealer's marketing materials appear to create the very warranties the dealer is trying to disclaim. For example, if a dealer gives express warranties of authenticity on the front of the invoice, he cannot disclaim those same warranties on the back of the invoice.