[Archive]

Posted By: PSpaeth

It is certainly difficult to prove "intentional" fraud in the sense Bruce means, but if a court were to impose a duty of independent authentication, there could be a claim for fraud based on recklessness, or negligent misrepresentation, without proof of "intentional" fraud in the sense Bruce means. As per the prior thread, I don't think such a duty would be imposed particularly with appropriate disclaimers by the auction house, although Corey made some excellent points in favor of imposing such a duty.