Would you follow through and pay? Brady's last TD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Don't do that. He will do a 180 on you and take you on a 40 post rabbit hole into his vortex of the absurd. Consummate contrarian and his sole purpose here is to argue and insult to get attention. Not necessarily in that order though.

Uh oh, that would make him a …. wait for it … TROLL.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks for responding.

And it sounds like your terms specifically let the consignor know the decision is yours in deciding what to do if a bidder doesn't pay.

Obviously this Brady football case is one that no one likely ever thought of, but now it has happened. And the fact that attorneys could argue that the AH description was a significant part of why an auction winner could just walk away from a transaction, puts the AH in the crosshairs. Leland's may be between a rock and a hard place on this.

So Scott, you don't have to answer this if don't want to, I'll understand, but if you're in Leland's place, what do you do? For $500K you aren't going to use Option #1, at least I'd think not. The buyer and seller are okay and there's no court activity and expenses, but you're probably facing a huge loss when you go to resell the football. Option #2 would still leave the buyer happy, but the seller would be pissed as you've transferred the potential loss to them. And if your auction description was at least partly at fault, chances are the consignor sues you for either not going after the winning bidder, or for the loss in value via the subsequent sale. Either way, you end up making the seller whole, AND incurring a ton of legal expenses. And Option #3 pretty much has the same results as Option #2, except the seller takes the football and sells it through someone else, you still probably get sued by the seller to make them whole, incur a ton of legal expenses, but now you don't even get to offset what would have been your sales commission against what you may now owe the seller. And in this particular case I guess there could also be an Option #4, where you initially go after and sue the auction winner. But failing to win that case, you're still stuck having to face Option #1, #2, or #3, on top of the additional legal expenses you incurred from first rying to win the Option #4 suit. It seems like if you can afford it, and you don't expect to win in court, you actually might best off taking Option #1 right out of the gate.

What do you think?

I have to follow my conscience and return the money. If my consignor wants to litigate that decision then all the arguments that have been advanced in this thread come into play, but between me and my consignor instead of me and my buyer. How was the item listed on the consignment contract? If it was listed as Tom Brady's final TD ball then I think I have a chance. If it was listed in some more nebulous fashion I feel like I'm at risk.

I will say if my company had the $500k (we don't) and it wouldn't cripple us, I would likely pay the consignor. On my scale I have done things like that in the past, it's just my scale is much smaller. Doesn't mean I haven't had to suck up a few that hurt, just that pain is relative. I would think one of the HUGE auction houses shelling out $500k isn't all that different than me shelling out a few grand. That being said I really don't know enough about Leland's to know if they could absorb that kind of hit, and would never presume to say everyone should do things the way I would.

I'd be curious to see if this would be covered by errors and omissions insurance. At the very least my insurance company would likely get involved in the litigation if it came to that, to prove this wasn't an error or omission but an unforeseeable event and back to the arguments we've all been having. I know I'd sure as hell file the claim to get them involved if it came down to it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

https://lelands.com/images/terms.pdf



Compare to: (need to click on link towards top);

https://www.ha.com/c/ref/terms-and-c...zx?view=buyNow

I see what you mean, and obviously not well proof read either. For example, page 2 of 5 it says payment due within 30 days, or they can charge your credit card. On page 5 of 5 it says payments due within 14 days, and they don't take credit cards. Clear as mud. And no mention or referral of a binding contract or when it is deemed effective. Eek!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I have to follow my conscience and return the money. If my consignor wants to litigate that decision then all the arguments that have been advanced in this thread come into play, but between me and my consignor instead of me and my buyer. How was the item listed on the consignment contract? If it was listed as Tom Brady's final TD ball then I think I have a chance. If it was listed in some more nebulous fashion I feel like I'm at risk.

I will say if my company had the $500k (we don't) and it wouldn't cripple us, I would likely pay the consignor. On my scale I have done things like that in the past, it's just my scale is much smaller. Doesn't mean I haven't had to suck up a few that hurt, just that pain is relative. I would think one of the HUGE auction houses shelling out $500k isn't all that different than me shelling out a few grand. That being said I really don't know enough about Leland's to know if they could absorb that kind of hit, and would never presume to say everyone should do things the way I would.

I'd be curious to see if this would be covered by errors and omissions insurance. At the very least my insurance company would likely get involved in the litigation if it came to that, to prove this wasn't an error or omission but an unforeseeable event and back to the arguments we've all been having. I know I'd sure as hell file the claim to get them involved if it came down to it.

Thank you for the very interesting and straightforward answer, and I'd probably agree and do what you did. I guess one major question can be who comes up with and is responsible for the actual auction description. I assume the consignor tells the AH what the item is, but that is probably embellished a bit by the AH then, so responsibility may be a bit murky.

And thanks for bringing up the insurance aspect. I totally forgot about that. It is another reason to go with your Option #1 if your insurer is on board. You watch, if this Brady football case ends up costing some insurance company big money, don't be shocked if down the road you see something about policy changes or new requirements from your insurer because of this.

Tell you what, I hope you personally never have to face an issue like this one yourself.

And from what I was just reading in Steve's link to Leland's auction terms, I think they may be in a worse position than I ever would have expected. Can only imagine what their consignment agreement and terms look like.

[FrankWakefield]

The 30 day and 14 day differing due dates... that's a mess.

As to when it's binding, I'd say that's when a bidder bids.

When is the consignor bound, when he sends the lots to the auction house AND they agree to terms. After all, why do auction folks want you to send stuff to them up front... so the house can be sure of what it is and that the consignor actually has (read had) it.

It is a mess.

ONLY thing that comes to mind that could have compounded it... just imagine that PSA graded NFL footballs...

[JimC]

Has someone already asked what happens if it turns out the ball was deflated?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

The 30 day and 14 day differing due dates... that's a mess.

As to when it's binding, I'd say that's when a bidder bids.

When is the consignor bound, when he sends the lots to the auction house AND they agree to terms. After all, why do auction folks want you to send stuff to them up front... so the house can be sure of what it is and that the consignor actually has (read had) it.

It is a mess.

ONLY thing that comes to mind that could have compounded it... just imagine that PSA graded NFL footballs...

Good lord Frank, all we need now is a graded football, you're right, what a mess.

I still can't believe those auction terms include no mention of a bid being a binding contract. As I mentioned to Scott Russell, this Brady football debacle could get some AHs to maybe review and do a little updating to their terms and rules. LOL

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by JimC

Has someone already asked what happens if it turns out the ball was deflated?

Why would it be?

[lowpopper]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

I would argue that the sale price ($518k) reflected the risk Brady would return. That is - the risk was already baked into the cake, and is the reason the ball "only" went for $518k and not more.

Over a decade ago, Barry Bond's final homerun ball sold for $750k. Adjusted for inflation, in today's value, the $750k is worth over $832k. Thus, Brady's "final" TD ball sold for just 63% what the Bond's ball would fetch today.

In 1999, twenty-three years ago, a bidder paid $650k for Hank Aaron's final homerun ball (#755). Adjusted for inflation, in today's value, the $650k is worth over $1.1M. Thus, Brady's "final" TD ball only sold for less than half what Aaron's final ball would fetch today.

Like Aaron and Bonds, Brady is a legend and among the greatest to ever play. I know baseball's number are more sacred, but I would expect the true final Brady TD ball to sell close to par with Aaron and Bond's final balls.

The sports collectible market has only increased since the Bond's ball sale. Brady is the greatest QB, and perhaps the greatest football player. The fact his final ball only sold for fractions, when compared with Aaron and Bond's final balls, tells me that the bidding reflected the risk that Brady would come back. If bidder truly thought Brady would stay retired, the ball should've fetched near $1M.

If Brady stayed retired then $518k could have been an absolute bargain. The winning bidder took a gamble that didn't pay out. If Brady stayed retired, the bidder got a tremendous deal. If Brady came back, the bidder could back out and cancel? Where is the bidder's risk? Letting the bidder off the hook gives the bidder all the upside with absolutely no downside.

All this is valid but the final HR ball from a
current HR King just seems to carry more weight

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why would it be?

Well, Brady did deflate its value (at least temporarily) with his un-retirement. Further proving that he does like deflated balls.


Steve

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why would it be?

To fit a medium flat rate box instead of a large one.

[Clutch-Hitter]

Don’t know if this is new information

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...n-charity.html

[rjackson44]

Has Leland’s commented on this at all?

[FrankWakefield]

A thought, and in no way does this change my mind that the high bidder should pay for this ball...

But what if he doesn't buy it, they offer it down to the next underbidder, and the next, and the next, until someone finally buys it and the consigner is good with it...

And then, Brady gets hurt in a preseason game and retires. No subsequent touchdowns thrown. Now, that original high bidder DOES want to honor that bid, and claims he is now entitled to get the ball because at the time the AH and consignor allowed him to withdraw that high bid it was not foreseeable to him that the ball may well be the Last Touchdown Ball??? So now he does get the ball and that willing underbidder has to give up the ball??

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

A thought, and in no way does this change my mind that the high bidder should pay for this ball...

But what if he doesn't buy it, they offer it down to the next underbidder, and the next, and the next, until someone finally buys it and the consigner is good with it...

And then, Brady gets hurt in a preseason game and retires. No subsequent touchdowns thrown. Now, that original high bidder DOES want to honor that bid, and claims he is now entitled to get the ball because at the time the AH and consignor allowed him to withdraw that high bid it was not foreseeable to him that the ball may well be the Last Touchdown Ball??? So now he does get the ball and that willing underbidder has to give up the ball??

That would be a clear waiver once he tells them he isn't buying it. He's out. The AH likely would make him sign something anyway relinquishing his rights.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Clutch-Hitter

Don’t know if this is new information

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...n-charity.html

That is interesting Greg, and clearly shows Brady was well aware of the football being sold. It also brings into question Brady's motives and doing what he did in announcing his unretirement right after the auction closed. I had heard rumors there was speculation in some corners that Brady may have intentionally done the unretirement announcement to get back at the seller because he wouldn't return the football Mike Evans unfortunately threw into the stands. Have no proof or basis, just repeating rumors heard.

Such a seemingly generous offer to donate a Bitcoin in someone's name may not be what it seems, and could easily be a stunt to throw people off from looking at this retirement announcement as a form of retribution that was supposed to impact the seller, not the buyer. Just look at this thread, can easily see someone initially thinking that the timing of the announcement would give the buyer reason to cancel and back out of the purchase, to the seller's detriment. But the person doing so may not have realized that the buyer may legally still have to go through with the transaction. So possibly as a PR move they offer to donate a Bitcoin in the buyer's name to the charity of their choice.

So what, that doesn't do crap for the buyer, he's potentially still out close to $500K. The donation is only made in the buyer's name, so want to bet who's going to actually get credit on their tax return for the charitable donation? It just makes you wonder a little more if there was something else going on.

[Schlesinj]

Brady in some way has a relationship with Lelands as a few months ago he auctioned off a meet and greet experience for charity “This too shall pass” via WHIP Fundraising. That meet and greet is to occur in April. It is a fundraiser to benefit victims of the pandemic.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Brady in some way has a relationship with Leland’s as a few months ago he auctioned off a meet and greet experience for charity “This too shall pass” via WHIP Fundraising. That meet and greet us to occur in April. It is a fundraiser to benefit victims of the pandemic.

In that instance, if he is working with Leland's you'd think he wouldn't want to do anything that could be detrimental to the AH. This whole situation with the timing and all is crazy. We'll just have to sit back and see how it all plays out.

[egri]

It looks like the sale was voided. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ase-at-auction

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by egri

It looks like the sale was voided. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ase-at-auction

But a few posters were adamant it was cut and dry and said the buyer is stuck to the purchase despite the changed circumstances.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But a few posters were adamant it was cut and dry and said the buyer is stuck to the purchase despite the changed circumstances.

Since these adamant posters were wrong, they should be forced to pony up and buy this football at the runner-up bid amount.

Brian

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But a few posters were adamant it was cut and dry and said the buyer is stuck to the purchase despite the changed circumstances.

Well in fairness to the people who expressed that view of the law, this was an agreed upon resolution, the issue was not litigated.

[Carter08]

I don’t doubt that this was a sticky issue, close call, and it begged for a settled resolution.

[JollyElm]

Reasonable solutions are always the best outcomes.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Carter08

BobC agree with your post mostly except this would probably be decided on a motion by a judge based on the listing and not get to a jury. I think it could go either way and will come down to who tells the best story and appears to be wearing the whiter hat so to speak.

I was re-reading the last page of this thread and found this amusing. Judges do not make motions, they issue rulings. It is attorneys that file motions. I have looked at thousand of dockets and have never seen a motion by a judge. Remember they are the arbiter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I was re-reading the last page of this thread and found this amusing. Judges do not make motions, they issue rulings. It is attorneys that file motions. I have looked at thousand of dockets and have never seen a motion by a judge. Remember they are the arbiter.

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

Thanks Peter. Nearly 20 years of practice. Sigh.

[chriskim]

so Jeffrey Lichtman was involved, i guess one side of the parties wasn't too happy about it. It was a mutual agreement to void the auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by carter08

thanks peter. Nearly 20 years of practice. Sigh.

smh.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But a few posters were adamant it was cut and dry and said the buyer is stuck to the purchase despite the changed circumstances.

But the posters are not always right. Right? I knew Josh and he was a standup guy. Set up at shows were he had tables. Consigned and bought from his auctions. Correct decision, a big hit for the auction company, but he left the auction site with his values. RIP Josh.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

I see what you are saying. From my view the wording is a little awkward. Thirty seven years reading legalese. I still write simply despite the attorneys.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Reasonable solutions are always the best outcomes.

Agreed it was the right thing to do and it saved on the potential litigation.

Feel sorry for the seller. What a big pay day he misses out on

Would have been interesting if Tom Brady Un Retired a few weeks later after it was paid how it would have played out or been settled

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

That's what he meant to say, yes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

That's what he meant to say, yes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Internet warriors. Bravo.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Thanks Peter. Nearly 20 years of practice. Sigh.

You might get a chance to try it for real!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Internet warriors. Bravo.

Seemed perfectly clear to me.

[carlsonjok]

If I was the buyer, I would consider declaring force majeure. Although, as a Bills fan, I would be loath to consider anything Brady did as an "act of God."

And, now, before the lawyers tell me what a doofus I am:

[jayshum]

https://www.nj.com/giants/2022/04/me...-it-again.html

[egri]

It’s being relisted in Leland’s upcoming auction.

[chriskim]

Oh well.... the same ball only SOLD FOR $129,657.60 last nite even Lelands was trying to hyped up that ball in the past 3 months as the most discussed football in the history. I feel like this is the same case as "buy the card, not the holder" kind of thing.

https://auction.lelands.com/bids/bidplace?itemid=110677