Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Not 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. <br /><br />Joe<br><br>Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Why not -- if you don't like the thread, don't respond to it. If others choose to respond to it, ignore it. Simple really.<br /><br />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.<br />

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>It 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.<br /><br />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.<br />JimB

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>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.<br /><br />Let me make our policy clear on this going forward just for the record:<br /><br />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".

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Jay H.</b><p>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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>"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."<br /><br /><br /><br />Now wasn't that easy?

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My 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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>Good 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.<br /><br />Ken

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Clean 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.<br /><br />

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>I 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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Fred the Cat? Ack!

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>DRS2</b><p>First send the card to PRO - they will give it a grade of at leaset NM-MT (or better).<br /><br />Then send the card to WIGWAG who will be happy to put it into a PSA holder.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Larry</b><p>I do think Steve has made a very fair effort here to close this matter without using any counter productive language....<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>"but to bog up the courts with this type of thing is not in societies or the hobbies best interest."<br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Sean C</b><p>This whole situation has been "educational" to say the least.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Actually, I read a very interesting article years ago about the woman that sued McDonald's for the hot coffee.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />According to the article, it was because of these things that she got really aggressive about the whole thing. Maybe, maybe not.<br /><br />Are all these facts 100% correct? To be honest, I'm not sure. My memory may be fuzzy, and I've never really checked.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />To the point that lawyers have already made above, maybe there are not as many frivolous lawsuits as the press would have us think.<br /><br />Personally? I would go to court in a second over $18K. This was NOT about cardboard. It was about paper.<br /><br />And good for you, Steve, for making good without having it get to that.<br /><br />Sorry for the long post.<br /><br />Joann

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>JK, <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Ken

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>In 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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I 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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>You 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

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Ken - thanks for the explaination. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Peter - Couldnt agree more. Emotions typically kill any chance of a settlement, particularly early on.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Perhaps 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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Ken - 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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Thanks 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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Before 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.<br /><br />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.

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p>One reason I have not chimed in on either side of this story is because I have it appeared that both sides of this story were not being layed out completely. I sure enjoyed this soap opera though, its be a nice learning lesson.<br /><br />Joanne, thanks for the other side of the McDonald's coffee story. <br><br>martyOgelvie<br />nyyankeecards.com

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>McDonalds and the coffee lady...<br /><br />Frank<br /><br /><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm</a</a>><br /><br />or<br /><br /><a href="http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx</a>

Mark Haverkos Final Answer to 1930 Ruth Card Controversy
 

Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>Just settle the thing. No big deal.