Main thing is I want to know how it plays out. Think we’ll know? News was all over the sale. Hopefully they’ll cover the aftermath, if there is any.

I think both sides have been fleshed out pretty well, so there is not really any novel argument to make at this point. The fact we are on Page 4 of the "Tastes great, less filling" debate suggests there is no definitive answer. As a newer member, I don't want to ruffle any feathers on this board, as I enjoy it. But, calling one side or the other "wrong" does not really advance either position. And, pointing to one's credentials to definitively state what a jury would or wouldn't do seems like an unproductive flex. Even though I feel confident I could get a verdict for the defendant with the facts presented, whether by jury or bench trial, I do not believe the matter is so clear cut that it precludes either party prevailing.

And, if my perspective can only be appreciated if accompanied by my credentials, I will say that clients foolishly paid the law firm I worked for over $700/hour for my thoughts before I left litigation 15 years ago to do something productive with my life.

If you think this one was bad scroll through the best lefty of all time debate. You’ll come away thinking this was rather cordial!

LOL

Peter,

In my defense, I did say I was looking at this from the standpoint of a juror, and not that of an attorney. I'm very aware of the legal side and how you attorneys try to always do things for your clients, as best you can. And most often do fantastic jobs. It's just that over the years I've seen and been involved in enough cases where I just literally shake my head and roll my eyes, and want to stop and question the sanity of the attorney whose argument or point is so insanely stupid or farfetched that I can't imagine anyone being that dumb, or anyone else buying into it. And yet, people do.

You said they "literally promised" which they literally did not do, which makes you literally wrong.

Ha ok. How do you interpret this? I interpret this as literally saying it’s the final touchdown of his career but I’d like your take because I bet it’s a doozy.

“If there is any item in the field of sports collectibles that needs no embellishment, it is this historic piece: the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady’s career.“

Trust me, I’ve had the same experience.

There have been a lot of great points and posts made on this thread. It is a fascinating discussion, because I was not the high bidder and nice to see everyone playing nicely too.

I'm an old CPA and worked and dealt with a ton of attorneys over the years, and have great respect and admiration for most all of them. As I told Peter, I'm looking and thinking of this as a juror, because if this does end up in court it will likely be a jury that decides it. I was telling Carter he was outright wrong in saying the seller could not deliver the last football Brady ever threw for a TD because right now, that football auctioned off is the last one he ever threw for a TD. He's using typical lawyer-speak and lawyer-logic to claim that isn't the last one simply because Brady says he's unretired. So following that logic and argument then, from at least one attorney's thinking, you can't ever sell any football Brady threw for a TD as his last one till he's dead, or permanently disabled, so you finally know for certain he's never playing again. Right? Because even he retires, he can apparently un-retire whenever he wants, as long as some NFL team will give him a spot. But that is not logical nor makes much sense to an average, normal person.

Were I on the jury hearing this trial, upon going in to start the deliberations I would bring up to my fellow jurors how the argument that Brady unretiring lets the buyer off the hook because the football was not as described is pure BS! At the time it was listed for sale it was exactly as described, and even that doesn't change until he actually throws another TD. I would ask my fellow jurors if a reasonable person would have believed that the auction description was fair and accurate at the time it was listed, through the auction's end. And if so, how can the buyer not have likely had the exact same feelings and thinking about the football, especially when he's going to spend $500K on it? And to drive the point home, I'd look my fellow jurors in the eye and simply ask them if when Brady announced his retirement, did any of them ever think he'd throw another TD pass again. Want to speculate on what the overwhelming response would probably be? And since this would be a civil trial, it normally doesn't have to be a unanimous decision to win, right? Next I'd bring up the question as to what if Brady did retire, but only for a year, and then came back in 2023 to throw more TDs. The buyer would have paid for and owned this football for well over a year now. So how do you honestly think an average, everyday, normal person would think and respond to some attorney trying to tell them that the buyer should still be able to negate the sale and get all their money back because the AH supposedly lied to them? I don't see that attorney getting a lot of sympathetic jurors on their side. And because of that last question, I would point out to my fellow jurors that what we really need to focus on is what the AH auction/sales agreement says, and how that correlates to the applicable state law to then determine when the transaction became enforceable and the chance of gain or loss from owning the football is transferred from the seller to the buyer. And if that transfer occurred and became enforceable prior to Brady's announcement he was going to un-retire, too bad seller, pay up. But if the transfer and enforceability doesn't kick in till after Brady's announcement, we'll need to take a little deeper look and think about letting the buyer off the hook.

You need to look at this from the standpoint of the actual common, ordinary people that would likely decide this case, not from the POV of lawyer-speak/logic attorneys who will rightly be doing everything they can for their clients, but possibly putting out some real stupid logic and BS to do so. This kind of debate always makes me go back and smile when I think of one of my favorite attorney quotes of all time. Bill Clinton's famous testimony statement: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!". Man, talk about a crock of $#%@. :D

And don't even go there about him not being a practicing attorney at the time, that would be a perfect example of using lawyer-speak/logic in trying to argue your way out of something when really know the other person is right!. :D

LOL

I'm sure we could swap some pretty good war stories. :D

I called Leland's, they said they can't make any comments at this moment.

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.

brady ball
 

HA HA ..I am right and you are wrong !

No, you are wrong!

This thread is hilarious, watching all the lawyers arguing back and forth, often in bad faith, as one would expect.

I've got good money that says the buyer doesn't pay for it, Leland's says something along the lines of "ya, we didn't expect you to", and no lawyers ever even get involved. Anyone care to place a wager?

Carter, don't disagree at all that that could possibly happen, but this is one of the problems with the legal system we have, and how attorneys get all wound up in this minutiae of words, specifics, implied meanings and what all else, to the point that most everyday, ordinary people start looking at agreements, contracts, leases and documents that are like novels because they're so ridiculously long, and contain so much unintelligible fine print that normal people see all this and often have absolutely no clue what is being said and its meaning, and so just end up wondering........W - T - F!

I've often felt that if there was ever a law to be passed, it should be one that requires things always be written in plain, simple English that every ordinary person can actually understand. But instead we're constantly faced with all this legalese and lawyer-speak, that is akin to a foreign language to most people. No wonder we end up with as many lawsuits as we do with all the confusion and misunderstanding that is out there in the world.

And in this particular case regarding the Brady football, a decision like this should never be left to just one single person (a judge) to make. As Peter alluded to in an earlier post, wouldn't that be like basing the outcome on an n of 1 sample, where there's only one item in the sample that an outcome is based off of. Well that sure doesn't seem to be a fair and logical way to determine something in accordance to how normal people in our society would view it. For that you'd want something more like ummmm, oh yeah, a jury of your peers to be able to give a more balanced opinion.

But if you're right that a judge would most likely decide a case like this themself, a former judge, who is also a Net54 member, has already weighed in on this thread and seemed to favor the seller's position in this case. Still as you say, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But I still feel the real crux of this case revolves around when the liability for the potential loss of the football's value transfers to the buyer. Pretty much everyone believed Brady had retired or good and the football was as advertised, and technically it still is.

Have a good one.

I think it's more in the nature of an academic discussion. I can't see Leland's fighting this one out, so I basically agree with you.

BobC, just an innocent question. Do you get paid by the word? :D:D

BTW, this post took me 3 minutes to type. :)

Ironically, if you pull up Lelands' terms and conditions, it's immediately apparent that they weren't written by a lawyer. Probably by some dude in marketing. Crying out for some lawyer to review them. Lack even the most basic terms and conditions one would expect to see with regard to significant commercial transactions.





QUOTE=BobC;2206278]Carter, don't disagree at all that that could possibly happen, but this is one of the problems with the legal system we have, and how attorneys get all wound up in this minutiae of words, specifics, implied meanings and what all else, to the point that most everyday, ordinary people start looking at agreements, contracts, leases and documents that are like novels because they're so ridiculously long, and contain so much unintelligible fine print that normal people see all this and often have absolutely no clue what is being said and its meaning, and so just end up wondering........W - T - F!

I've often felt that if there was ever a law to be passed, it should be one that requires things always be written in plain, simple English that every ordinary person can actually understand. But instead we're constantly faced with all this legalese and lawyer-speak, that is akin to a foreign language to most people. No wonder we end up with as many lawsuits as we do with all the confusion and misunderstanding that is out there in the world.

And in this particular case regarding the Brady football, a decision like this should never be left to just one single person (a judge) to make. As Peter alluded to in an earlier post, wouldn't that be like basing the outcome on an n of 1 sample, where there's only one item in the sample that an outcome is based off of. Well that sure doesn't seem to be a fair and logical way to determine something in accordance to how normal people in our society would view it. For that you'd want something more like ummmm, oh yeah, a jury of your peers to be able to give a more balanced opinion.

But if you're right that a judge would most likely decide a case like this themself, a former judge, who is also a Net54 member, has already weighed in on this thread and seemed to favor the seller's position in this case. Still as you say, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But I still feel the real crux of this case revolves around when the liability for the potential loss of the football's value transfers to the buyer. Pretty much everyone believed Brady had retired or good and the football was as advertised, and technically it still is.

Have a good one.[/QUOTE]

Would be great for the Brady PR machine for him to step in and offer to buy the ball for the sale price.

The timing of all this is very suspicious.

The auction ends, and then, just hours later, Brady un-retires.

It really makes one wonder if someone asked him to delay the announcement until after the auction, so it would go off without a hitch.


Steve

Scott,

You're in the auction business also, and thus know better than most the position Leland's is in. Everyone seems to keep talking about this being between Leland's and the auction winner, but what about the consigner? Your consigners enter into a consignment agreement with you, just as I'm assuming Leland's does with their consigners. You technically work for your consigners. So how does a typical AH consignment agreement in the case of a winner bidder that refuses to pay, for whatever reason, work? Does an AH have the ability to just unilaterally decide to cancel the auction with no input or say on the part of the consigner? And if so, is that because it is specifically written into the consignment agreement to protect an AH?

I can fully understand just canceling auctions in cases where someone backs out on paying just a few hundreds/thousands of dollars. The time, effort, and potential legal expense and other costs to go after such a winning bidder can make it totally senseless as you'll end up likely spending more than you'd get if the winner just paid you. But now we're talking $500K, and the further potential loss from a possible change to the football's significance. So if the AH refuses to go after the winning bidder on behalf of the consigner, can the consigner just step in then and go after the reneging auction winner themselves?

Or what about the consigner suing the AH for refusing to go after the auction winner on their behalf then?

According to some attorneys on here, the auction description may be a factor in letting the winning bidder off the hook from going through with the transaction. And assuming it was the AH that was responsible for writing the description, I could understand that maybe giving the consigner even more cause to go after the AH. In which case the consigner could possibly have cause to sue an AH for being harmed by the AH's mistakes as well. Heck, I could even see an attorney for an auction winner in a case like this one with Brady's football, prevailing over an AH because of the item's description, and then immediately turning around and contacting the consigner to offer to do the same for them against the AH. Probably wouldn't be the first time something like that may have happened either.

Will be interested to hear your responses from an AH viewpoint.

Oh, and as for agreeing with others that this thread is possibly just an academic discussion, I would definitely think not. If nothing else, it will help to educate members as to potential issues and problems that may occur were they to sell through an AH. And by examining and discussing the causes of these issues, and how they may end up being resolved, it may also let people better know what questions to ask and what things to look for in an AH's consignment and other agreements. That way a consigner can make a more educated choice in which AH they end up choosing, and hopefully never get stuck in the middle of a situation like the consigner of this Brady football apparently finds themselves in now.

No Jim, unless you're offering to start paying me. :D

I just don't like my words being twisted or misinterpreted, so I try to completely answer/respond to questions and discussions with full disclosures, evidence, and as much data as possible to intelligently and logically make my point/response, and make it as difficult as possible for the troll/contrarian types to have their way.

Isn't listening to bickering lawyers fun?


Not when they are representing you though.

I'm curious about how people view a similar topic, but from a different perspective. There were a lot of Kobe Bryant cards that were instantly snatched up from ebay a mere seconds after the news broke about his death. Especially auto cards. Due to the limitations of eBay's selling platform, the sellers couldn't even hand logged in to change the price in time even if they wanted to. If these cards were sitting in display cases at a card shop, there's zero chance that the owner of the shop would have honored those sticker prices after the news broke. But what about on ebay? Should the seller who listed a Kobe auto card for $5k be obligated to proceed with the sale after it instantly quadrupled in value after his death? I say no.

Note, this is quite different than canceling a sale after a player wins the super bowl, MVP, or something similar where everyone knows the big game or vote is coming up.

And no, the odds of death are not "baked in" to the market at any given moment for a player of Kobe's age, unlike with Willie Mays where everyone knows he is in his 90s and is the oldest living HOFer.

Now that is completely shocking to me if that is the case. Leland's is well established and has been around for decades. It is hard to believe they wouldn't have had expert legal counsel and advice in the drafting of their various documents and agreements.

If not, that may be changing in the not too distant future, depending on how this Brady football situation turns out.

Maybe their lawyer did even worse than Steve in contracts class. :eek::D;)

To me it would be fair to let the seller off the hook due to the changed and unpredictable circumstance.

Will answer your other questions, but this made me laugh out loud. You practically defined "academic discussion" while maintaining this isn't one.

Still though Peter, don't you think someone around so long and so prominent in the hobby would be more careful about this?

And I didn't go looking up the action terms/agreement, for the record, so basing my comments on what Steve was saying.

I would definitely be on the horn to the consignor the minute Brady unretired. I am somewhat picky who I work with. I have driven an entire collection back to Ohio in a 12 foot box truck at my expense because the consignor was trouble. I have had consignors think that somehow the law was going to be on the side of them enriching themselves through fraud. So while there's no guarantee I would hope my consignor would be on the understanding side. This could be tough if it was life-changing money, which, in this case it might have been. Yes my fiduciary duty is to my consignor, NOT the buyer. However fiduciary duty only extends so far. I don't have to do something illegal, or even unethical in the name of fiduciary duty.

Real world scenario for my smaller company we have three ways of dealing with no pays and they are at our discretion as outlined in the consignor agreement.

1. Pay the consignor as if the item had been paid for. We take possession and auction again in a future sale to try and be made whole. This is the approach we take almost all of the time.

2. Do not pay the consignor but place in a future auction on their behalf.

3. Return the item to the consignor.

While we've done consignments that have totaled over $500,000 our big single item is only 1/10 that amount so it's obviously not a situation we find ourselves in, yet. I think a more interesting situation that isn't currently covered by my contract is buyer pays, but then, understandably, wants his money back. What do I tell my consignor then? The only way this is addressed in our contract is if an item is returned because of authenticity issues. That isn't the case here. It's tough when there is no "bad guy" actor. Everyone will be unhappy, but oddly, that's probably how it should be in a weird case like this.

I would expect any significant auction house to have a good set of terms, yes.

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

Then we may have different definitions/understandings of what on academic discussion is or should be. I've always thought of an academic discussion as one where there is no specific goal or result to come from the discussions, and that those involved are participating and talking merely for the sake of talking and for passing the time or entertainment purposes, more or less.

I thought it was fairly clear in my engaging in this discussion that, among other things, I'd like to find out the reasons why this potential legal issue arose, and how the courts may view and act upon it, so as to better ascertain what to look out for in the future should I seek the services of an AH, and to try to not let myself ever fall into a situation like the consigner of the Brady football now looks to be in. I also mentioned how my questions and their responses could then help educate others on here to better know what to look for and ask about should they look to engage and consign with an AH at some point in the future as well. I would think those are very specific goals/results that I was looking for, and thus not making this simply a complete academic discussion, at least not to me. My apologies if that was not clear and evident before.

Looking forward to your responses and getting more insight from the AH side of the issue. And you never know, questions and discussions like this may just prompt you to review your own company's contracts and agreements, and get you thinking about some possible changes you may need/want to make to them. If there's one thing I've learned in all my years of dealing with people and businesses, things constantly change, and you need to review, and possibly update/change what and how you do those things every so often, as a result.

As would I.

I see Steve posted a link to Leland's terms. I'll take a look and see how bad they are. Should be interesting. LOL

How do we know this is not more bad faith from one of you hilarious lawyers? What is beyond hilarious, but typical, about this thread is the same guy who just slammed all the lawyers who have posted on this thread now comes here to ask a legal opinion.

Wouldn't shock me if Brady found out about it and did it on purpose.

I think it's good faith when you agree with him. :D

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 trying 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 be best off taking Option #1 right out of the gate.

What do you think?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...

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

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

Why would it be?

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

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


Steve

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

Don’t know if this is new information

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

Has Leland’s commented on this at all?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Brian

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

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

Reasonable solutions are always the best outcomes.

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.

Thanks Peter. Nearly 20 years of practice. Sigh.

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.

smh.

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.

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.

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

That's what he meant to say, yes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Internet warriors. Bravo.

You might get a chance to try it for real! :)

Seemed perfectly clear to me.

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:

https://c.tenor.com/1hYvRJpGIFgAAAAC...mp-running.gif

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

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