Originally Posted by BeanTown (Post 2434511)

Some ML employees and didn’t someone have to alert the police a 2 million dollar box is missing?

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2434463)

So, deceive bidders to benefit the consigners?

Suppose a bidder on a stolen lot called with some questions about it. Like, will you ship it out expedited so as to be presented as a birthday gift? Or, will you ship it UPS instead of Fedex, because my local Fedex driver is unreliable?

If you chose to continue the auction with the stolen lots, and you were on the phone with a bidder on some of those lots, would you basically lie directly to them, if it was necessary to continue the deceit? And I don't mean YOU, I mean the AH in this hypothetical.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434493)

I get it, and obviously I'm talking in hypotheticals as well, when not talking completely out of my ass.

I just can't imagine ML doing this without advice of counsel and possibly law enforcement. So I would have to turn to them in the scenario you outlined.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434493)

My fiduciary duty is to my consignor, that does NOT allow me to operate in bad faith with my buyers using that duty as a cover. With that in mind that is why I feel very strongly that this decision wasn't made lightly, or even independently of advice from counsel or an outright request form law enforcement.

Originally Posted by mannequin1 (Post 2434509)

How did you find out about that artricle in the above link?

Originally Posted by Mark17 (Post 2434514)

So if your attorney recommended you lie directly to your bidders, you would follow that advice, in order to keep the phantom auction lots alive and not risk revealing the true situation?



Here you seem to be saying you would go against your attorney's advice, if it meant dealing with your buyers in bad faith.

Everyone who is simplifying this down to: "Do what your attorney says" is basically saying: "your attorney will advise according to your self-interest, so do that - do what is in your self interest. Then hide behind your attorney."

Stuff (and money) trumps all.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434525)

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434525)

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434525)

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2434475)

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2434530)

I think you're posing a false either or. Obviously one would not advise a client to break a law in a clear-cut situation. But many situations calling for legal advice are not so simple and one would certainly need to understand and take into account a client's business objectives and the consequences of different options.

Originally Posted by Casey2296 (Post 2434532)

Strictly hypothetical Scott and I won't hold your feet to the fire, but what do you think the consignors would have decided re; keeping the auction going, if they had been made aware of the situation a day after it happened?
I have no idea at what point they were notified so this is just a thought experiment.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434550)

Let's put it this way, I'm not 100% but if I had been a consignor, my knee-jerk reaction, I would've wanted my stuff back, but I could've been talked out of that if presented with a compelling argument.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2434552)

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2434553)

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2434556)

The question is what would you want to have happen with the auction if your item in it was stolen prior to close.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2434553)

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2434552)

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434559)

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2434562)

Hi Scott! I'm just playing devils advocate, obviously it totally sucks for both consignor and buyer. Some of the cards are basically irreplaceable, but at least there is some sort of hare brained value placed on them. As Ryan mentioned, overall was about what he expected. Imagine if insurance looked up last sales....yikes!


I'd have to check my Memory Lane consignment agreement for actual terms, but I'm assume ML DOES own rights ( to sell, possibly mentiined as dispose, at a minimum) to be able to sell the card, at their discretion, as long as the consignor is paid. Otherwise, if the sales were weak, the consignor could just "demand their property back". So I am finding flaw in your logic that the auction houses never have "ownership" of their consignments.

If the cards appear, can the consignor demand them back, or is ML legally bound to sell to the highest bidder? They would be returned to the "owner" or posessor? Strange situation


Possession is 9/10ths of the law 🙄

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434640)

Well a contract to sell gives the right to sell to the auction but they're still not technically ever the owner.

It's probably unnecessary but we have language in our contract that says the consignor agrees that to pull an item we must be in agreement, so people can't just flake out and change their mind late in the auction if they're unhappy.

7. This contract is to remain in full force and cannot be canceled without the agreement of both parties

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 2434559)

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

Originally Posted by ValKehl (Post 2434708)

It is my understanding that generally, a consignor retains title (ownership) to his consigned items until they are sold and paid for. Of course, any specific consignment arrangement can be different in this regard. My REA consignment agreement states that if a winning bidder does not pay within a reasonable time, REA has the option of paying the consignor, in which event REA will then have title to the consigned items.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435496)

There was a funny post on Blowout.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...8&postcount=98

Originally Posted by jayshum (Post 2435497)

Is that a real story about the arrest? I searched on nbcnews.com and I also did a Google search, and I am not finding anything about an arrest.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435498)

It’s a joke.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435507)

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield (Post 2435504)

you know that's not right.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435509)

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435511)

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435519)

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435520)

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They bid on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435520)

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435521)

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435524)

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2435523)

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435526)

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435525)

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did :rolleyes:. If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2435527)

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435530)

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435530)

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2435533)

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435532)

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435536)

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield to an unjustified result.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435537)

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 2435539)

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435546)

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435549)

I don't want any result here. I am simply stating my opinion, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435551)

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious :rolleyes:







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money :rolleyes:

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435552)

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss (Post 2431520)

As many of you know, I consigned a large portion of the prewar items that sold last night. I am very content with the results, although they were all over the place.

Last night's auction contained about 75% of my total consignment, with other items to sell in the Summer and Winter auctions. When I first consigned, Joe and I (Joe is with Memory Lane) sat down and we estimated a low, likely, and high value for every card. Last night, the total aggregate sales price of my consignments, with the Buyer's Premium, was about 3% above the total likely-value we placed on the items. Thus, last night's entire consignment ended, in the aggregate, almost exactly where we estimated it would. That said, many individual items went for very different amounts that expected (both good and bad).

The D304s went crazy. Literally, nonsensical; but I wont complain! The Wagner, Matty, Lajoie, Collins, and many commons went for multiples over prior highs.

My T206 set and 1914 CJ set both did better, in aggregate, than I expected. The 1914 CJ Jackson was the bad egg of the entire auction -- someone stole that card. But most other items, including commons, did very well. Same with the T206 set; the Green Cobb did not do well at all, but that was offset substantially by the other Cobbs and many PSA 7s+ and strong results for commons.

The W600 Matty went through the roof, as it should have, considering it was produced in his rookie year (albeit not the first issue of his rookie year). The Tip Top Wagner did great, and my Planks all finished very strong. Almost every Ruth finished on the lighter side of what I expected, and a few crapped the bed. Wagners and Cobbs are definitely 10%-20% off their highs, but still strong.

Put it this way, it was a very large and diverse consignment and it ended at 102%+ (including BP) of where we estimated the likely value total to be. I am happy with the results, and now I need sleep!

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435556)

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435556)

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435562)

Hmmmm. Well, a lot of people in this thread seem to agree with me that this was not fraud, but doubtless you dismiss them too as self-serving or self-deluded or whatever. And just to correct something I am not putting myself over anything, I am analyzing a case based on my experience. To have faith in one's judgment based on experience is not arrogance.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435565)

You also know an appeal to popularity is not logical, and you would not accept that as reasonable if you had a minority opinion. A thing is not right or wrong because 51% think so (or 51% who clear a certain wealth threshold). If I thought that Memory Lane’s fraudulent action is just fine because a majority here may support it, I would have to endorse a whole bunch of horrible things.

Surely there is an actual argument here instead of pretending the dictionary is wrong and lying is not deceitful and your experience is paramount to the language. If I made an argument hinging on how my experience overcomes the dictionary, you’d know I was being a fool and wrong. Can we just have a point made that is not palpably absurd? As I’ve said before the ‘maybe the cops told them too’ is a much better defense, because the vast majority of the actual arguments made in this thread cannot be defended without blatant falsehoods and rejections of the dictionary of the last two pages. It is not that hard to make logically consistent arguments in favor of unethical things.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2435558)

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.



And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435568)

To me, you're being overly literal and pedantic rather than focused on the realities of the situation including that ML had no intent to injure anyone and did not injure anyone. When next you see a fraud case where the dictionary prevailed over those two factors, do tell me.

Originally Posted by G1911 (Post 2435571)

Intent to injure is not what you said or what we have been talking about. You argued repeated organized lying to hundreds of bidders was not intent to deceive. I am not using a pedantic thing or an archaic definition, anyone with common sense knows damn well organized lying is deceitful. Only here do we pretend we can’t figure that out :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435574)

You're now in a closed loop. Only the dictionary matters, only your interpretation of the dictionary is right, and anyone with any other perspective is disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435570)

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2435582)

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 2435561)

Then walk away knowing that you won.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435574)

You're now in a closed loop. Only the dictionary matters, only your interpretation of the dictionary is right, and anyone with any other perspective including one based on decades of experience is disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 2435583)

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

Originally Posted by Carter08 (Post 2435599)

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh (Post 2435604)

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

Originally Posted by bnorth (Post 2435603)

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?:confused:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2435607)

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh (Post 2435604)

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

Originally Posted by Lorewalker (Post 2435607)

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.