Auction houses are legitimate businesses that perform tasks and functions, and don't just sit there waiting for money to roll in.
Cherry-picking the collection (if true) and taking 40% of the cut is a really, really bad deal for the consignor.
No reasonable person should have signed this contract when it was presented to them, for, if nothing else, that it is more like someone's notes than an actual contract and is wildly incomplete. A consignor need not sign anything put in front of them and should not, the auction house obviously is looking out for their own financial interests, and the consignor should know to do the same for themselves and do their due diligence.
This 'contract' is so poorly phrased and done that it should be pretty easy to get out of.
An inventory list would complete the evidentiary part from the consignors end.
It would be interesting to hear how the OP's post was "not accurate", as the production of the contract seems to validate most of them.
We can further deduce its probably not a fair deal to the consignor because talk of it had to be banned to the watercooler to reduce eyes on it, which does not happen to threads that reflect well on Lelands, only those that reflect poorly (previous example:
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=276894)