Latest development in Shanus v. REA

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A counterclaim is a lawsuit.

As lawyers we understand this - but for the non-lawyers, some people are clearly wondering: why is REA making a claim against Corey? Well the answer is that Corey sued first. A Counterclaim is a common part of an aggressive defence. I doubt REA would have filed this claim if Corey had not sued first.

Cheers,
Blair

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

I doubt REA would have filed this claim if Corey had not sued first.

Cheers,
Blair

I agree. I am surprised REA filed it even as a counterclaim, frankly.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree. I am surprised REA filed it even as a counterclaim, frankly.

Me too. Ultimately, I think that decision may end up being counterproductive.

[Runscott]

Perhaps I'm being lazy, but I really enjoy just sitting around flipping through all the great auction catalogs, browsing the auction house websites, getting drunk off my ass and spending way too much money. It's so much fun and I never get sued.

But I do realize that there are a lot of collectors who, behind the scenes, are spending a lot of energy keeping this 'Babes in Toyland' world relatively safe for innocent idiots like myself.

There are a lot of different types of players in our hobby - someone should create a board game.

[tbob]

IMHO, if REA can truly prove that it did indeed lose money because of this quote on the Net 54 Board, one would have to think it could have a chilling effect on poster commentary. I don't have a dog in this fight but the outcome is going to be very interesting.

[SetBuilder]

What's this case all about? Why did Corey sue REA in the first place?

[birdman42]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

What's this case all about? Why did Corey sue REA in the first place?

Manny,

Here's a link to a thread from last year. The link in the first post is dead, so here's a good link to the original article in the *New York Daily News*.

The thread: http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=135307
The DN article: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...ticle-1.108694

Bill

[Leon]

Originally Posted by tbob

IMHO, if REA can truly prove that it did indeed lose money because of this quote on the Net 54 Board, one would have to think it could have a chilling effect on poster commentary. I don't have a dog in this fight but the outcome is going to be very interesting.

Hey Bob
I am no lawyer, obviously, but is this board any different than any other very popular (for a hobby) public venue? If someone told a news reporter something it would be no different. I always say to be careful of what you say on our board. Everyone is liable for what they say AND with virtually no anonymity everyone is accountable. I am sure you would agree that is the best way to operate a message board? So, I am not sure this venue is different than other public ones from a liability standpoint?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tbob

IMHO, if REA can truly prove that it did indeed lose money because of this quote on the Net 54 Board, one would have to think it could have a chilling effect on poster commentary. I don't have a dog in this fight but the outcome is going to be very interesting.

REA has to establish both liability and damages. In my personal opinion, just based on the language of the post, it will be very difficult to establish that a comment about the potential pitfalls of consigning 19th century memorabilia to auction houses was libelous.

[tbob]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

REA has to establish both liability and damages. In my personal opinion, just based on the language of the post, it will be very difficult to establish that a comment about the potential pitfalls of consigning 19th century memorabilia to auction houses was libelous.

Peter- I agree absolutely. My comment was that IF REA were able to prevail on its counterclaim, that posters would really be gun-shy about what they posted on the board. I did not mean to imply that I felt they WOULD prevail, only that IF they did it would have a chiiling effect on comments in the future. There are may different reasons to file a counterclaim in ANY case, not only the honest belief that the party being sued is actually the aggrieved party but also occasionally an attempt to derail the opposition's claim or try and muddy the water by obfuscation.
As mentioned previously the issue of an exact determination of damages appears to me to be very speculative, IF the counterclaimant managed to get over the hurdle of liability in the first place.
Leon- I agree with you also and it has long been your policy to patiently but firmly caution posters to realize the possible ramifications of what they might post on this board.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by tbob

IMHO, if REA can truly prove that it did indeed lose money because of this quote on the Net 54 Board, one would have to think it could have a chilling effect on poster commentary. I don't have a dog in this fight but the outcome is going to be very interesting.

Mr. Shanus' quote, in my opinion, did not attribute the later price drop in 19th century sheet music to anything that would be considered wrongdoing by REA, but rather attributed that significant price drop due to the very limited demand of deep-pocketed investors for that type of collectible.

To take that type of thinking to its logical conclusion, this could mean that a price guide like VCP, could also be found liable for documenting that one item by a consignment seller on Ebay sold that item for X and then also documenting a year later an identical item by the same consignment seller sold on Ebay for 0.4X would mean VCP would be libeling both the consignment seller and Ebay since both could claim that information would discourage future consigments of that item and therefore reduce profits, etc. In my opinion a lawsuit like that would be manifestly absurd.

Peter brings up a good point too. REA has a steep mountain to climb proving damages due to Mr Shanus' posting such as finding 19th century sheet music consignees who read that post and decided not to submit items to REA based on that comment alone. Even if they do produce witnesses who will claim that they were discouraged from consigning items to REA based on that post, it still comes down to Mr. Shanus rendering a factual observation that was not a poor reflection upon REA's actions.

Finally, I've since learned by reading REA's counterclaim that this was not just libel, but business libel. That does carry a 2 year statute of limitations, but with it REA also has to prove malice, which should be extremely difficult unless they uncover some evidence that Mr. Shanus knew he intentionally made a false statement. Assuming the statement was substantially true to begin with, and the counterclaim appears to acknowledge the price drop, I don't see this counterclaim going anywhere at all.