Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So if your attorney recommended you lie directly to your bidders, you would follow that advice, in order to keep the phantom auction lots alive and not risk revealing the true situation?



Here you seem to be saying you would go against your attorney's advice, if it meant dealing with your buyers in bad faith.

Everyone who is simplifying this down to: "Do what your attorney says" is basically saying: "your attorney will advise according to your self-interest, so do that - do what is in your self interest. Then hide behind your attorney."

Stuff (and money) trumps all.

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

An attorney will not recommend illegal activity. But the attorney does represent the client and his interests. Also, we don't know how the consultation with the attorney(s) went down. It could've been the client saying, "Could I proceed this way?" And the attorney saying, "You could..." But that's all speculation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

I think you're posing a false either or. Obviously one would not advise a client to break a law in a clear-cut situation. But many situations calling for legal advice are not so simple and one would certainly need to understand and take into account a client's business objectives and the consequences of different options.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think you're posing a false either or. Obviously one would not advise a client to break a law in a clear-cut situation. But many situations calling for legal advice are not so simple and one would certainly need to understand and take into account a client's business objectives and the consequences of different options.

It was an exaggeration to make a point, what are your thoughts on my last sentence, that was the serious one.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

Strictly hypothetical Scott and I won't hold your feet to the fire, but what do you think the consignors would have decided re; keeping the auction going, if they had been made aware of the situation a day after it happened?
I have no idea at what point they were notified so this is just a thought experiment.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Strictly hypothetical Scott and I won't hold your feet to the fire, but what do you think the consignors would have decided re; keeping the auction going, if they had been made aware of the situation a day after it happened?
I have no idea at what point they were notified so this is just a thought experiment.

Let's put it this way, I'm not 100% but if I had been a consignor, my knee-jerk reaction, I would've wanted my stuff back, but I could've been talked out of that if presented with a compelling argument.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Let's put it this way, I'm not 100% but if I had been a consignor, my knee-jerk reaction, I would've wanted my stuff back, but I could've been talked out of that if presented with a compelling argument.

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

The question is what would you want to have happen with the auction if your item in it was stolen prior to close.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The question is what would you want to have happen with the auction if your item in it was stolen prior to close.

I would want to have been told asap of it, and at the very least my stolen lots pulled immediately from the auction

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

Hi Scott! I'm just playing devils advocate, obviously it totally sucks for both consignor and buyer. Some of the cards are basically irreplaceable, but at least there is some sort of hare brained value placed on them. As Ryan mentioned, overall was about what he expected. Imagine if insurance looked up last sales....yikes!


I'd have to check my Memory Lane consignment agreement for actual terms, but I'm assume ML DOES own rights ( to sell, possibly mentiined as dispose, at a minimum) to be able to sell the card, at their discretion, as long as the consignor is paid. Otherwise, if the sales were weak, the consignor could just "demand their property back". So I am finding flaw in your logic that the auction houses never have "ownership" of their consignments.

If the cards appear, can the consignor demand them back, or is ML legally bound to sell to the highest bidder? They would be returned to the "owner" or posessor? Strange situation


Possession is 9/10ths of the law 🙄

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

It is my understanding that generally, a consignor retains title (ownership) to his consigned items until they are sold and paid for. Of course, any specific consignment arrangement can be different in this regard. My REA consignment agreement states that if a winning bidder does not pay within a reasonable time, REA has the option of paying the consignor, in which event REA will then have title to the consigned items.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

If that's what he meant, I'd probably be all for keeping the auction running. Of course telling the consignors of stolen items invites all sorts of possible shenanigans with bidding to run up the settlement.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think you have a flawed idea of an attorney's job. He isn't there to advise you to do what's in your best interest.

What if my best interest is to burn my business down to collect insurance? My attorney will tell me, hey, moron, that's a bad idea.

Attorneys on the board please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine your duty to your client involves giving them sound legal advice, not merely telling them what they want to hear.

Broadly speaking, yes. I spend a great deal of my time, professionally speaking, advising clients about things that may subject them to criminal or civil liability. The obvious ones are easy. There are many situations where the answer is less of a black and white and more of a risk-reward assessment. My job in those cases is to advise the client on the pitfalls of each approach. Either way, the client has the final say and does whatever he or she wants. In other words 'my lawyer told me to' is a cop-out defense. I see it all the time with insurers when they are sued for bad faith and they assert an advice of counsel defense. That might get you clear of some aspects that require intent, but even then there is a limit on how credible it is as a defense. I don't see many murderers getting by on an advice of counsel defense. ML might as well try the Steve Martin defense instead:

You say, “Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You.. have never paid taxes’?” Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language:

“I forgot!”

How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”? Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?” Two simple words:

"Excuuuuuse me!!“

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I am confused by the false equivalencies being posted.

How can people not understand the difference between intentionally operating in bad faith (posting a fake listing to drum up business, or create a comp point) and operating in good faith and having something go horribly wrong?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I am confused by the false equivalencies being posted.

How can people not understand the difference between intentionally operating in bad faith (posting a fake listing to drum up business, or create a comp point) and operating in good faith and having something go horribly wrong?

I don't think anyone credible is saying that the auctioneer was not operating in good faith and did not have something go horribly wrong. The disagreement is about what the auctioneer did after something went horribly wrong. The choice there was really simple: let bidders think they will get the cards they win or end the lots and not let bidders think they will get the cards they win. Me, personally, I choose the route that doesn't involve misleading innocent people. I don't see why that is a big stretch.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't think anyone credible is saying that the auctioneer was not operating in good faith and did not have something go horribly wrong. The disagreement is about what the auctioneer did after something went horribly wrong. The choice there was really simple: let bidders think they will get the cards they win or end the lots and not let bidders think they will get the cards they win. Me, personally, I choose the route that doesn't involve misleading innocent people. I don't see why that is a big stretch.

My thought's exactly...it's not a big stretch.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't think anyone credible is saying that the auctioneer was not operating in good faith and did not have something go horribly wrong. The disagreement is about what the auctioneer did after something went horribly wrong. The choice there was really simple: let bidders think they will get the cards they win or end the lots and not let bidders think they will get the cards they win. Me, personally, I choose the route that doesn't involve misleading innocent people. I don't see why that is a big stretch.

I think the one wrinkle is that maybe there was a chance that ML recovers the items before the auction ends, or shortly thereafter?

I realize that hope springs eternal, and hope is not much of a strategy, but it's not completely crazy to proceed on that basis. Of course, once you head down the road of not shutting it down, it gets a lot more exciting the closer you get to the end of the auction without having recovered the items.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't think anyone credible is saying that the auctioneer was not operating in good faith and did not have something go horribly wrong. The disagreement is about what the auctioneer did after something went horribly wrong. The choice there was really simple: let bidders think they will get the cards they win or end the lots and not let bidders think they will get the cards they win. Me, personally, I choose the route that doesn't involve misleading innocent people. I don't see why that is a big stretch.

People are literally posting hypotheticals where an auction is acting in bad faith from the get-go and saying, "If what ML did was OK then this is OK too, right?"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

People are literally posting hypotheticals where an auction is acting in bad faith from the get-go and saying, "If what ML did was OK then this is OK too, right?"

I could make almost any proposition look wrong and inconsistent using the Socratic method. But so what? It's a useful exercise in some contexts and can be fun (not in the first year of law school when you're on the receiving end, perhaps), but at the end of the day it has significant limitations. These "gotcha" posts don't establish anything about the specific ML situation IMO. Life is complex, everything doesn't reduce to clean lines, deal with it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I could make almost any proposition look wrong and inconsistent using the Socratic method. But so what? It's a useful exercise in some contexts and can be fun (not in the first year of law school when you're on the receiving end, perhaps), but at the end of the day it has significant limitations. These "gotcha" posts don't establish anything about the specific ML situation IMO. Life is complex, everything doesn't reduce to clean lines, deal with it.

Exactly. My hypothetical examples were meant to expand on the notion (which I inferred from your posts) that if nobody suffers measurable damages, there is no real problem.

The point I was clumsily trying to make with the comparison to the shill bidding thread of years gone by is that, at that time, the "damages" were the phony sales that were left hanging out there. Whether the bidder can't (or won't) honor the bid, or the AH won't (or in this case can't) complete the sale, the end result is non-sales looking like sales.

I was NOT in any way comparing what ML did, to the act of shill bidding and I'm sorry if that impression was given. I was aiming at the similarity of a party knowingly advancing the impression a sale was actually happening, when it was not. And, that in the previous discussion, this was seen as a decidedly damaging impact on the hobby.

Hopefully ML has retroactively removed those phantom lots from their auction results.

In short I was trying to establish whether deceit and phantom sales were ok, generally, if a lawyer couldn't bring suit (nobody hurt, no damages.) My journey down the slippery slope produced nothing conclusive.

My mind is big enough to recognize ML had to choose between a few bad options.