[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Mastro was vindicated in the sense that it was not proven that they intentionally defrauded Daniels. However, I did find it interesting that although Daniels only complained about 123 of 2000 pictures he bought from Mastro (6 percent), the court ordered Mastro to pay him back 9K of the 20K purchase price for the whole lot (45%). So, while Mastro was vindicated in the sense that it was not found to have intentionally defrauded Daniels, the court did make Mastro pay back an inordinate amount of the purchase price for advertising something that was not ultimately included in the lot.

If Doug does not mind, I would love to know how much Daniels ultimately sued Mastro for -- no doubt it was for much more than 9K. This was one of those cases that cried out for settlement, no doubt, but stubborn litigants refused to give in and they both lost out when legal fees are factored in. At the very least, I applaud Mastro for not settling a claim that it intentionally defrauded one of its customers (and coming out on top on this issue). As it would appear that both sides agreed that Daniels did not receive what he won based on the auction description, I wonder why this case couldn't have been settled right at the beginning when Daniels received his package.