Would you follow through and pay? Brady's last TD

[BobbyStrawberry]

I'd want to know whether or not it was deflated.

[Jewish-collector]

This is one of those times that you gotta say to the auction house, "Sometimes, I'm just not gonna pay"

[oldjudge]

You can pay or spend attorney’s fees when you get sued and then pay. Sounds like either way the buyer is screwed.

[oldjudge]

I wonder if, out of the goodness of their heart, Leland’s waives the buyers commission.

[chiprop]

Doubt it. False advertising! “the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady’s career”. I would not pay and take my chances.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chiprop

Doubt it. False advertising! “the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady’s career”. I would not pay and take my chances.

Fairness would seem to dictate the buyer shouldn't have to pay, and there is usually a way under the law to advocate for a fair result.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

You can pay or spend attorney’s fees when you get sued and then pay. Sounds like either way the buyer is screwed.

My first reaction would be to consider the doctrine of impossibility/frustration of performance/purpose == Leland's cannot now deliver the item as represented due to changed circumstances. I'd have to think about it more and research. There are classic cases called the coronation cases -- people rented hotel rooms on the assumption a coronation would be on a certain date, but then the date changed. Or some similar fact pattern. Vague memory from first year contracts. Can't remember which way they came out.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My first reaction would be to consider the doctrine of impossibility == Leland's cannot now deliver the item as represented due to changed circumstances. I'd have to think about it more and research. There are classic cases called the coronation cases -- people rented hotel rooms on the assumption a coronation would be on a certain date, but then the date changed. Vague memory from first year contracts.

It's not really impossible; they can deliver the item. More like force majeur. The value of the item was destroyed by events beyond anyone's control or consideration.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It's not really impossible; they can deliver the item. More like force majeur. The value of the item was destroyed by events beyond anyone's control or consideration.

Frustration of performance/purpose then. Force majeure feels not quite right but similar notion. Do you remember the coronation cases from law school? I have to refresh my memory.

[Shoeless Moe]

Technically it is what the title says it is, and will be for the next 6 months.

Buyer has to pay

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yep. This is at least the right framework.

Closely related to impossibility, frustration of purpose applies when a change in circumstances makes one
party’s contract performance worthless to the other party. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 265.

The defense commonly contains three elements:
1. the party’s principal purpose in making the contract is frustrated;
2. an event occurred whose non-occurrence was a basic assumption underlying the contract; and,
3. the party invoking the defense was not at fault.

The validity of the defense often turns on the first element. The principal purpose of a contract must be
something which is so completely the basis of the contract that, without it, the transaction between the
parties would make little sense. Thus, while impossibility is primarily concerned with “the nature of the
event and its effect upon performance,” frustration is concerned with “the impact of the event upon the
failure of consideration.”

The famous “Coronation Cases” provide a royal example of frustrated purpose. In Henry v. Krell, a British
court excused a defendant from his promise to pay fifty pounds to watch the coronation parade of King
Edward VII from the plaintiff’s flat when the coronation was abruptly cancelled due to the King’s health.
Krell demonstrates that frustration is not substantial when the disadvantaged party merely stands to gain
less than the bargained-for performance. Rather, the frustration must be so total, and caused by an event
so wildly unpredictable and outside the scope of either party’s reasonable expectations, that it would be
unfair to enforce the terms of the contract. The Second Circuit, for example, limits the doctrine to “virtually
cataclysmic, wholly unforeseeable events.”

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

This is one of those times that you gotta say to the auction house, "Sometimes, I'm just not gonna pay"

Timing is terrible. However, buyer would face a breach of contract lawsuit if he/she doesn’t pay.