Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker
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?
|
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.