If the ONLY facts we had in this case were that ML was selling the cards and that it did not have them in its possession, then sure we might think there was fraud.
But when you factor in everything else we know:
--that ML had valid consignments to sell the cards
--that the cards were stolen
--that it was pretty clear the thief was local and associated with the Best Western (I believe that was the state of play) and therefore there was a chance the cards might be recovered
--that ML would have to compensate the consignors if the cards were not recovered, and likely had insurance coverage that would require valuations before that could happen
--that continuing the auction to conclusion would be the most straightforward way to value any cards that were not recovered
--that ML had no intention of taking money from any auction winner unless it could deliver the card
Then it becomes clear there was no "fraud" in the traditional sense. To me, any argument that IGNORES all these additional mitigating facts and circumstances is fundamentally flawed and just based on reductio absurdum.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. 
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 12-23-2024 at 12:20 PM.
|