Quote:
Originally Posted by nolemmings
Dan, I believe the premise of the trade libel claim is 1) Corey knew that the reason the price had fallen on the sheetmusic was not because of any market forces or because of limited demand, but because the prior REA auction price was artificially high, made artificial by Corey's alleged shill bidding and 2) knowing the "real" reason the price had dropped substantially was because of his own (alleged) wrongdoing, Corey nonetheless intentionally suggested that the low price was attributed to REA's failure to set an adequate reserve. That is how I read it.
Although I too wonder about the damages elements of the claim and both the surrounding circumstances and litigation strategy, I find the other count of the counterclaim, which alleges that Corey engaged in shilling, to be interesting, shall we say.
|
Take a look at the prior REA auction that was allegedly artificially high as a result of Corey's shill bidding.
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/1.html
In that 2004 auction, REA refers to a
prior sale of the item for $25k. "We are aware of fewer than five known examples of The Live Oak Polka. This example was once one of the signature nineteenth-century pieces of the Halper Collection. It appeared in the famous 1999 Halper auction as Lot #3. It sold at that time for $25,300, and has been consigned to this sale directly from the purchaser at that landmark sale."
So Corey's observation that the 2010 sale price was low relative to past sales appears to me to be true even without reference to the 2004 price allegedly inflated by his own shill bidding, on the basis of statements made by REA itself.