Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy [Archive]

Archive

03-29-2007, 01:52 PM

Posted By: leonLet's talk about this for a second.....Isn't this a hobby issue? Hasn't the whole thing been played out, by all parties, on the board? I advised Mark to consult his lawyer, and that he could post it here if he wanted to. I also said he might send a registered letter to Steve as is probably customary in this kind of situation. All along I have asked him to consult his lawyer...and I believe he has been. If everyone thinks it should not be on the board then I can talk to Mark and delete it. I am not sure I see the problem though (maybe I am blind and if so I am sure I will be convinced soon).....For some reason I can't figure the board out sometimes.....I guess I am in left field? regards

Archive

03-29-2007, 01:55 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethThis whole dispute has been aired in public, by both sides. Any eventual lawsuit will be a matter of public record. What is so sacred about a demand?

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:00 PM

Posted By: peter ullmanit seems to me...that the tone of this letter adressed to steve verkman...and the subject matter are somewhat personal. Granted, all has been aired on this board regarding this topic BUT...it just doesn't seem right for all of us to be seeing this...probably before Steve V. If a lawsuit is imminent...so be it...we will all find out about it sooner than later...but before the defendant even knows about it? Just doesn't seem appropriate. pete in mn

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:02 PM

Posted By: E, DanielWhen the story was fresh and gruesome it drew us in and we gave it full opinion as it related to the hobby. Now though it just feels tacky - as if we were being shown the dirty underwear after the divorce. We don't need to see their underwear, do we?? Daniel

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:03 PM

Posted By: DennyIt is a hobby issue! & we've heard it all to this point...Why not see it thru til the end? Even if it seems inappropriate...Didn't it seem inappropriate a long time ago? I'm very interested in seeing the outcome. Only for righteousness sake, not for the Controversy... Life's Grand, Denny Walsh

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:05 PM

Posted By: DanIf this bad boy goes to court, unfortunately the only real winner in that situation is whomever represents both sides. For example, the amount is $18k, now, of course the suit will be for the entire amount and both sides will put up a good fight, now, no matter who wins and who loses, there will be an appeal. Now, we are in to round two of the famed 30 Goudey and no one has been paid except the "representatives", not the clients. Round two ends in another win or possibly a flip-flop of the original judgement and yep, you guessed it, appeal or threat of an appeal and as with round one, no one has been paid except the "representatives", not the clients and thus is the problem with this entire thing, Steve has lost at least 5 times this amount in credibility even if he is right and Mark has lost 4/5'ths of the money originally paid out to lawyer fees. In the end, no one wins and the hobbyist's lose all the way around. Gentlemen, maybe it is time to pull out a set of dueling pistols and settle this like men, over a beer, lots and lots of beer, then go find the jerk that originally put this thing up for auction and make him buy the next 10 rounds of beers until everyone agrees on what to do and how to handle it. Trust me, I think 20 or so rounds of beers among enemies is a much less expensive route and in the end, someone is holding someones hair out of the way; like friends should.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:09 PM

Posted By: JohnThis is a pointless post, although pointed towards Steve obviously. Steve will never respond to this post, if he has half a brain or even better an attorney with one. He’s not going to respond in a public forum where he is being threatened to be sued, even the lamest of attorneys would advise at this point talking and or discussing anything with Mark. I deal with this stuff in business all the time, a basic rule of thumb if you want to see discussions stop, and your problem most likely never get resolved mention the word lawsuit.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:09 PM

Posted By: leonSteve knows a lawsuit is imminent. I don't blame Mark for bringing one too....as has been discussed here. It seems like everyone jumped on the bandwagon before but now they don't want to see the final chapter? Personally, I don't care one way or the other but I am pretty sure everyone does want to know the outcome......I know I do. I have told Steve, as recently as the last day, that the issue is with the card AND his guarantee.....not one or the other at this point. I am not saying I will not bid in Steve's auctions but I guess I will be more careful. I am not sure what his guarantee means?

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:10 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)General Hospital As the World Turns The Young and the Restless Mark, Steve and the Babe I suppose if they can't talk to each other on the phone then I guess they will talk here. In the future can both parties please type in conjecture, feeling and emotion so we can all "feel" for what is going on in both of your heads. If you feel like swearing, please, by all means, swear... if you feel like shouting then PLEASE PUT ON YOUR CAPS LOCK... I enjoy being a part of this and I can't wait to read about the outcome, but for now, I'd really like to get a "feel" for what's going on...

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:11 PM

Posted By: Dan Kotelesso much drama in the LBC its kinda hard being a SNOOP d.o double "G" How many times are those gonna repeat themselves here ?

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:16 PM

Posted By: John"Steve knows a lawsuit is imminent." Of course he does Leon, and if he’s smart he wont put him self at any more risk to be misquoted, or having any post be open to interpretation by Mark’s attorney. That’s all I’m saying, the word lawsuit makes people go turtle.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:19 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI was unaware the worm had turned.... Last I heard (or read in his own hand/post) on this forum Steve had both agreed to put the money in an escrow account, AND promised that Mark wouldn't be out any money. What did I miss in episode 26? Daniel

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:20 PM

Posted By: Rob DewolfI'm still trying to decide if I'd give you $5 for this card ...

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:21 PM

Posted By: Daveuh oh....another 300 posts...and there was something I was actually wanting to watch on TV tonight.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:25 PM

Posted By: DanNevermind

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:31 PM

Posted By: T206Collector...was to try to use the Board again for leverage to get what the purported plaintiff wants. His one shot at that should be enough for him. At this point, he is actually showing his cards that he would very much prefer not to file a lawsuit. Which is not a particularly strong stance to be taking. Having Steve served with a complaint and summons is taking a bold move. Making a repetitive post on an internet chat board is the opposite of that.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:31 PM

Posted By: leonMark has said, to me, that since no less than 6 experts have opined the card is not real, that he doesn't want the card regardless of paper/ink testing. I have also told Steve, this morning or last night via email, that I wouldn't want to buy a card that all of those experts have said is fake, unless it can be proven it was actually printed circa 1930. Since, without other evidence, it's impossible, I wouldn't want to buy the card. Would anyone on the board want to buy the card even if it was tested to have 1930's ink and 1930's cardstock given the written letters, and other opinions we know of, about this card? Like I have said all along... If it were a real 1930 card I would love to have it...I don't see this thread getting deleted unless I hear more overwhelming, convincing arguments why it should be. Brian M. and myself try very hard to make this as open a forum as possible. best regards

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:31 PM

Posted By: AndyI agree with Steve M. The reason this post is innappropiate is because this post isn't an update of what HAS happened. It is a message (threat?) from one party to the other, which is of no business to anyone except them. Mark hasn't addressed any of the readers of this board to respond as was done earlier when he wanted opinions on the subject. He is sending a message to Steve that only Steve needs to be reading. This isn't the proper venue for this message and I think everyone knows that. My two cents. Thanks, Andy

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:34 PM

Posted By: Jason Lthe harder time I will have in trying to consign my 1942 Upper Deck Jackie Robinson Autographed Refractor with uniform patch 1/1, with Fleer-issued hologram & COA from the ultra-rare Before They Were Anybody set, which was actually issued in the Fall of 1941. It has a beautiful sunset background, printed in black & white on thick card stock with a calendar of 1946 on reverse.

Archive

03-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI do think after reading Leon's post there has been a change in the story and its likely outcome, and perhaps Mark was just synopsizing all of that in his shot across the bow statement above. He probably could have just said that Steve and he no longer had any agreement going at all, and that short of getting a refund by a certain date he would indeed begin litigation. I think everyone probably would've been ok with a post like that, no? Daniel

Archive

03-29-2007, 03:16 PM

Posted By: MarkLeon, can't you see that your entire board has been manipulated for personal ends? if this was a hobby issue, it is no more-now it is a commercial dispute and you are being used...and the board being abused Mark

Archive

03-29-2007, 03:21 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethIn my opinion, the ongoing dispute and its adjudication/resolution reflects on the integrity of a significant auction house and therefore has continued relevance as a hobby issue.

Archive

03-29-2007, 03:27 PM

Posted By: WesleyWhen Mark files suit, it will take months to resolve. Do we really need weekly updates regarding his demands, final demands, summary judgment motions, mediations, etc? He has already posted about his demand and request for escrow in the other two threads. He already threatened litigation in the other two threads. Can't Mark just post the results when this is finally resolved?

Archive

03-29-2007, 04:21 PM

Posted By: Frank EvanovThis type of post is inappropriate. Take it outside gentlemen. Frank

Archive

03-29-2007, 04:25 PM

Posted By: WesleyWhy can't all the posts be more like the ones in the "Most Amazing Sunset" thread?

Archive

03-29-2007, 06:57 PM

Posted By: Bruce BabcockDave, what did you find to watch on TV tonight?

Archive

03-29-2007, 09:01 PM

Posted By: bcornellIt's the usual forum grandstanding. If you're going to threaten legal action, do it through the normal channels, i.e., not here. Bill

Archive

03-29-2007, 09:11 PM

Posted By: DaveBruce....I'd rather not say...ahem (my wife makes me!)

Archive

03-29-2007, 09:17 PM

Posted By: steve yawitzAny thread that elicits an allusion to Gin 'n' Juice can't be all bad. <a href="http://imageevent.com/yawie99" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://imageevent.com/yawie99</a>

Archive

03-29-2007, 09:32 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaYou can tell us Dave. We're all friends here. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Actually Wednesday is a good day for TV - you have to have a Tivo or DVR though because both shows are on at the same time. I like to watch Jericho - fun and campy......and....the best show on TV by far in my opinion is Friday Night Lights. I fear that it may get cancelled so you guys need to start watching it. And to get back on topic I don't have a problem with the situation being discussed here, but Mark should have just told us what his plans were and not addressed Steve in the fashion he did.

Archive

03-29-2007, 11:46 PM

Posted By: Anonymousso sensitive! Mark is updating us on whats going on currently with a terrible situation that he's been put in. This is a major story in the hobby, like Leon said. It doesnt violate any rules for being a post topic. If you feel the issue has been played out and are no longer interested in it, just tune out on this thred. I for one am very interested in the resolution of this

Archive

03-29-2007, 11:54 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Anybody need any pro bono clients? I'm kind of tapped out.

Archive

03-30-2007, 05:51 AM

Posted By: Steve fThe Office Marathon on NBC tonight! I completely understand Marks outburst... I'd been ripped off for far less and wanted a pound of flesh. If Mark's first post had been worded objectively, I believe it wouldn't be such a turn off to the board. Mark, it's obvious you'd been screwed hard. You already won support here. No need to manipulate, it cheapens your cause. I'd like to keep updated on this saga -without theatrics. This auction house's past and future questionable items could end up in any of our shoeboxes through second hand auctions.

Archive

03-30-2007, 08:21 AM

Posted By: Paul MossSince when does posting a demand on a message board constitute a valid notification for a civil matter? Where are the legal eagles in the house? All I can say is that were I involved, my attorney would have slapped me over the head a few times for even discussing the matter over the phone with someone, let alone playing out the hand in a public forum for one and all to see as has transpired here. For that, I'd have been on the receiving end of his Louisville Slugger. God, I do so love a soap opera! Drama, we need more drama!

Archive

03-30-2007, 11:38 AM

Posted By: David SmithPaul, I totally disagree with you!!! That is the problem with this country right now, everybody wants drama and excitement instead of being boring and doing the right thing. Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richey and Lyndsay Lohan get more publicity for going out and being bad girls than they do by making an album, movie or TV show. Drama and excitement instead of being productive, doing their jobs and making something. Lying politicians and Attorney Generals. Drama and excitement instead of doing thier jobs leading this country and upholding the law. Mark (the buyer) and Steve (the seller) drama and excitement. If Mark had asked more questions and if Steve had sent this "card" off to be authenticated, then this whole mess wouldn't be where it is now. I am sure both Mark and Steve would rather not have gone done this path but they have and they have both added drama and excitement to a bad situation. David

Archive

03-30-2007, 12:03 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanSue, Sue, sue........the great american way. Don't you think it would be better if we all communicated and worked things out vs making threats. Thats why the court system is so overwelmed these days. What is wrong with our society!!!! And all this over cardboard. Why don't we collect for fun anymore? What a joke. Ken

Archive

03-30-2007, 12:30 PM

Posted By: peter chaoLeon, We've discussed the topic a number of times in this forum, as hobbyists we should maintain a tone of civility towards each other. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing civil about threatening a lawsuit in a public forum. It shouldn't be done. I agree with those that want to either lock or delete this thread. Peter

Archive

03-30-2007, 12:40 PM

Posted By: Josh AdamsSo let me get this straight. First, people get upset at Leon because he creats a thread, and then locks it. Now, people want to lock a thread, concerning that very same subject matter. Oh the irony!

Archive

03-30-2007, 12:45 PM

Posted By: warshawlawMark got cheated out of $18,000+ by a dealer who won't live up to his written guarantee on an item that every credible expert who's seen it thinks is fake. What would you suggest Mark do besides go to court to get his money back, stand outside Verkman's office and sing Kumbaya? Take a baseball bat to his knees? You know, contrary to many peoples' misguided beliefs, not all lawsuits are frivolous...

Archive

03-30-2007, 12:51 PM

Posted By: peter chaoAdam, There's no doubt that Mark has a legitimate complaint. The question is whether he should threaten a lawsuit on this forum. The answer should be no. We should not be a party to the threats by condoning Mark's behavior. Peter

Archive

03-30-2007, 01:05 PM

Posted By: leonI have written 3 responses and not hit the respond button. All I will say is "thanks" for everyone's input.....I appreciate it. I hope the situation gets worked out soon. I wish the whole mess would have never happened....as do most others......best regards

Archive

03-30-2007, 01:13 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanPeter gets my point in my earlier post. Some things are legitimate to sue over, but to make threats on a public forum is rediculous. That behavior belongs elsewhere!!!!! Too many people use the I'm going to sue card way too much. That is a huge issue in our society. As a practicing veterinarian, I have had many clients that bad mouth other colleagues and want my staff and myself to get involved in this behavior. I personally refuse to do so and have a disdain for people that idolly use this threat. If you truely have been wronged it is fine to sue, but don't air your complaint publicly. It ruins your credibility!!!!

Archive

03-30-2007, 01:27 PM

Posted By: NoelKen, With all do respect I think you may change your mind a little if you were the one out $18,000 for a card you purchased for "fun" and found out it was nothing more than a fake or reprint. The seller/auctioneer of the card needs to either provide some proof that the card is legit (which seems an exercise in futility at this point) or make good the money in a timely fashion as his guarantee states. I never seize to be amazed at some of the business practices of people who hope to continue to sell and build up their client base. What is Steves most hopeful outcome to this stiuation i wonder?

Archive

03-30-2007, 01:52 PM

Posted By: Steve M."A lot of interest has been shown on the 1930 Goudey calendar card situation so I just wanted to give all a quick update. We reached an agreement for an escrow and testing. To date the escrow funds have not been deposited nor has testing commenced. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon. /s/ Mark"

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:17 PM

Posted By: joeNot to make light of this, $18,000.00 is a lot of money, I lost $1150.00 on a Fake Cobb T205 a while back, but this will take as long as Ann Nicole Smith's Patenity law suit. Joe Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:20 PM

Posted By: BrianWhy not -- if you don't like the thread, don't respond to it. If others choose to respond to it, ignore it. Simple really. Another option is for every post to go to a review board in advance who would decide if the message is worded correctly and discern if the intentions are acceptable. I am sure some people would readily volunteer to sit on the committee. My guess is all posting would stop, as the committee would never reach agreement on which posts are acceptable.

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:28 PM

Posted By: joe brennanKeep it open. I want to see just how much business this matter costed this auction company. In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:30 PM

Posted By: JimBIt may not have been particularly skillful of Mark to post a threat here, but Steve has $18k+ of his money and thus far he has only responded to this issue at alll when it was brought to this public forum. For the life of me I cannot understand why Steve still has not returned the money in full with (hopefully) sincere apologies. It just seems like a no-brainer to me and most everybody but Steve Verkman. It is time to stop fighting Steve. You are only hurting yourself. JimB

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:45 PM

Posted By: SteveIn order to bring this difficult situation to a close, we will issue a complete refund for the full purchase price if the card purchased at auction is returned to us at our offices in New York. Let me make our policy clear on this going forward just for the record: We will accept returns of any items rejected by a major grading service as we have always done (and which very rarely comes up). For items where we feel the grading services may not be able to ascertain authenticity, this will be fully disclosed in the description and the sale will be clearly noted "as is".

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:51 PM

Posted By: Jay H.Steve get the card examined. You can do a lot for this industry if you prove these people to be wrong. You can open up the doors to a new level.

Archive

03-30-2007, 03:57 PM

Posted By: Brian"In order to bring this difficult situation to a close, we will issue a complete refund for the full purchase price if the card purchased at auction is returned to us at our offices in New York." Now wasn't that easy?

Archive

03-30-2007, 04:17 PM

Posted By: leonMy offer still stands. I told Steve, today, if GAI (Mike Baker) or SGC will put this in an authentic holder (actually it would get a grade if it's real) I will still buy it for 19k. I hope this whole matter goes away..As for letting this issue go or not, on the board, after reading everyone's thoughts...I have not changed my mind. ...best regards

Archive

03-30-2007, 04:49 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanGood end to a bad situation. At least in the end Steve did the right thing. I realize 18 K is alot of money, but to bog up the courts with this type of thing is not in societies or the hobbies best interest. I agree with Leon, get the card examined and graded. It would be interesting to see what all the facts are. I have always sais there are 3 sides to every stoy: One side, the other side, and the truth. The truth usually falls somewhere inbetween the two parties. Once all the facts are in, tell the forum the whole truth. Ken

Archive

03-30-2007, 04:57 PM

Posted By: warshawlawClean Sweep reserves the right to override any outside authenticator by saying "as is" on the listing. Fair enough and thanks for the policy going forward so we can all take note and bid or refrain from bidding accordingly.

Archive

03-30-2007, 06:42 PM

Posted By: joe brennanI am very glad that Steve has done the right thing for this buyer. Mark, I am very happy that things worked out for you. In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Archive

03-30-2007, 06:57 PM

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)pffft.... anti-climatic ending.... I think everyone was waiting for a Supreme Court decision on this one.... pffft...

Archive

03-30-2007, 07:12 PM

Posted By: Rob DewolfI guess this post by Mark wasn't such a bad idea after all, was it? Assuming, of course, that Steve Verkman makes good on his statement.

Archive

03-30-2007, 07:14 PM

Posted By: MarkFred the Cat? Ack!

Archive

03-30-2007, 07:23 PM

Posted By: DRS2First send the card to PRO - they will give it a grade of at leaset NM-MT (or better). Then send the card to WIGWAG who will be happy to put it into a PSA holder.

Archive

03-30-2007, 07:31 PM

Posted By: LarryI do think Steve has made a very fair effort here to close this matter without using any counter productive language.... He is out the money he paid the consigner originally and I am sure that was an expensive lesson. He does get my understanding to this fact....that this situation was not intended to defraud anyone and that this buyer Mark handled things from the beginning differently that I would have in the same situation and I would have gotten the same results without the laundry effect. I did not like this particular card as I never placed a bid on this at all however I think Steve will at least get a "Unique" item slabbed authentic in the future to save aggravation, or he has the right to sell "as is" disclosed and caviet emptor. Thankfully, it has been a good business decision to resolve it, hopefully Mark will return card in same condition as acquired.

Archive

03-30-2007, 07:50 PM

Posted By: JK"but to bog up the courts with this type of thing is not in societies or the hobbies best interest." Ken, what planet do you live on that 18k isnt "the type of thing" that is worthy enough to "bog" up our courts? I'd really like to know what you believe to be a "legitimate" subject for a lawsuit. The fact that the root of this particular dispute was a valuable baseball card makes it no less a legitimate case for our courts. Truth be known, the majority of lawsuits are not frivolous - the problem is that the media only cares to report about the person who sues mcdonalds because their coffee was too hot. But nevermind all that, Ive got a deal for you - if you promise me that the next time a patient runs up an $18,000 bill with you and doesnt pay that you will refrain from using a collection agency or taking legal action to recover your money, I will (like most lawyers) continue to refuse any case that even remotely smacks of frivolity. Now doesnt that feel good.

Archive

03-30-2007, 08:09 PM

Posted By: Sean CThis whole situation has been "educational" to say the least.

Archive

03-30-2007, 08:57 PM

Posted By: JoannActually, I read a very interesting article years ago about the woman that sued McDonald's for the hot coffee. At the time, most restaurants served coffee at around 140 degrees F or so. McDonald's served their coffee somewhere around 180F. (The numbers might not be exactly right, but they are close - point is that the gap was significant.) McD's knew that their customers favored McD's particularly, specifically because it was so hot. At 140F, you have about 25 seconds to "do something" before third degree burns or whatever serious injury will occur. For me, that's enough time to pull over in the middle of the worst rush hour traffic jam in the worst part of the freeway and at least get out of the car. At 180F, you only have three seconds to do something before you are subject to serious injury. For me, that's probably not enough time to remove my seatbelt and get out of the car even if I am parked in my own driveway. This woman had severe burns that covered her rear end and the entire back of both thighs. She was in the hospital many times, for a long time, and had something like seven skin grafts. She never intended to sue McD's for so much, but when she started talking to them about any settlement at all, she learned some interesting things (or her lawyers did). She learned that there had been dozens of similar suits in the past, and McD's had settled for about 6 digits in each case. And that each settlement included a confidentiality requirement on the recipient. Because McD's customers favored their coffee particularly, specifically because it was so hot. So ... McD's knew that its coffee was hot enough to cause serious injury within seconds. It knew that the average person did NOT know that. It had paid millions to other plaintiffs to suppress this information from others. And yet it continued to hand this coffee to people behind the wheel of a car, about to pull into traffic. People that were about to juggle the coffee along with driving, traffic, balancing it somewhere, whatever multi-tasking they were about to do with it. People that McD's knew had no idea of just how hot it was, and just how quickly it could injure. According to the article, it was because of these things that she got really aggressive about the whole thing. Maybe, maybe not. Are all these facts 100% correct? To be honest, I'm not sure. My memory may be fuzzy, and I've never really checked. But if they are even close to being true, then it means that the poster child for the concept that we are a lawsuit-crazy nation, and that people want to sue everyone for their own misjudgment and misfortune, may just well be ... not true. And the lawsuit may have had actual merit. But she sure took a lot of crap for her "frivolous" lawsuit, didn't she? To the point that lawyers have already made above, maybe there are not as many frivolous lawsuits as the press would have us think. Personally? I would go to court in a second over $18K. This was NOT about cardboard. It was about paper. And good for you, Steve, for making good without having it get to that. Sorry for the long post. Joann

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:15 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanJK, Don't think I have ever seen an 18,000 dollar veterinary bill, but if it did get that high, I think the client and I would be talking long before it got to the point of collections. I try always to give my clients fair and honest advise as any professional should do. They are also apprised of what the costs of things are along the way. Communication is the key. I think you missed my points in the posts however. I don't believe making legal threats in a public forum is appropriate as others have also stated in this thread. I don't feel that Mr. Verkman originally handled the situation correctly either. Also 18,000 dollars is not a small deal by any means. I believe that Mark would get further with appropriate diplomacy and less controversy. I also do not believe that all law suits are frivolus. However most could be avoided if people would discuss things and think before they speak. Face it, the legal system is overtaxed at the publics expense. It has been an interesting thread however. Also, JK, I applaud you for not taking frivolous cases. It shows good ethics and good thought process. If I ever need a lawyer, I'd consider you. Ken

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:38 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethIn my experience the vast majority are not "frivolous." That said, Ken is right that many suits could be avoided altogether or settled early if parties applied more rationality and less emotion at the early stages. But that is a big IF, in my experience. Human nature being what it is, it frequently is the case that one or both parties starts out with an irrational view of the merits and/or too much emotional attachment to the case, wanting either to kick the crap out of the wretched defendant who screwed them, or to defend against the outrageous claim by the disgraceful plaintiff. In these circumstances there simply is no chance for rational settlement. To some extent this may be fueled by lawyers -- many lawyers try to impress clients by being bullish and aggressive. But often it is the clients' fault too -- more times than I care to recall, I have seen cases settle on the eve of trial for exactly what they could have settled for on day one, but the client wanted no part of it because they had too much emotion invested and/or refused to see that their case was not a lock. So it just isn't that simple, bottom line. EDITED TO FIX GRAMMAR

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:40 PM

Posted By: leonI didn't really want to post my change of heart on the board, concerning buying the card, but feel I need to since I posted my original offer here. Due to some recent communications I do not want to buy this card under any circumstance and I am backing out of trying to help anymore. I have emailed Steve as such a short while ago...and Mark is out of town. I think the offer has been made for a refund and hope it goes smoothly. It will be going smoothly without me trying to help anymore though. Good luck to both parties. best regards

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:45 PM

Posted By: Ken McMillanYou nailed that one Peter. Exactly the point I was trying to make. Cool heads will prevail if people will give logic a chance. Have a great evening and remember, opening day is around the corner. Go Cubbies

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:52 PM

Posted By: JKKen - thanks for the explaination. Joanne - I beleive you are correct - despite how it was portrayed originally in the media, the McD's coffee case actually had some merit to it. I used it as an example solely because most people (as you noted) consider it the poster child of frivolous cases. Peter - Couldnt agree more. Emotions typically kill any chance of a settlement, particularly early on.

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:56 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Perhaps not all lawsuits (or even most) are frivilous. However, in my experience, (most) ALL become frivilous when overzealous plaintiffs and plaintiffs' attorneys make their demands so high as to prohibit settlement/resolution.

Archive

03-30-2007, 09:57 PM

Posted By: JKKen - I will add one thing. While Mark's posts may not have all been the most appropriate (particularly this one), I do believe that they ultimately resulted in the very thing you are championing. Specifically, a resolution without court intervention. Could it have been done privately, more civilly at times, sure. But the result is the same.

Archive

03-30-2007, 10:05 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzThanks for bringing up the McDonald's hot coffee case. Most all of what you say is spot on correct. What makes me shake my head is that many folks point to that case as the poster child for frivolous lawusits and runaway juries, when any examination of the facts and history shows that analysis to be utter poop. You omitted a couple of things though: 1) McDonalds first saying that they kept their coffee at 180 because their market research showed most people waited until they got to their destination before drinking it--complete BS that made them look worse, and 2) that their settlement postions all along were basically you'll take nothing and like it, when they could have been out of the litigation relatively cheaply. Goes to show where arrogance gets you, although their lawyers can shoulder a fair share of the blame.

Archive

03-30-2007, 11:19 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackBefore the infamous coffee accident, McDonald's was warned numerous times by government safety inspectors that their coffee was too hot, and specifically that it was dangerous to serve coffee that hot to customers in running cars. It's fair to argue the merits of the case, but one should realize that McDonald's had been warned that their practice was dangerous and that it could result in drive-through customers being scalded. When I was in college I would go to McDonald's, and from my personal coffee drinking experience there was no question McDonald's coffee was much hotter than anywhere else. I would sometimes wonder how they could get it that hot.