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

[vintagewhitesox]

There is a binding contract between the buyer and seller. the fact that an event happend "after" the contract was entered into does not change the terms. Buyer has to pay. If he backs out, I would sue him for the amount he agreed upon.
But I practice criminal defense and not this stuff so what do I know?

Here's another question.
What if the role was reversed? What if Brady had announced his retirement the next day? The value of the ball would increase. Should the buyer have to then pay more to the auction house?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

There is a binding contract between the buyer and seller. the fact that an event happend "after" the contract was entered into does not change the terms. Buyer has to pay. If he backs out, I would sue him for the amount he agreed upon.
But I practice criminal defense and not this stuff so what do I know?

Here's another question.
What if the role was reversed? What if Brady had announced his retirement the next day? The value of the ball would increase. Should the buyer have to then pay more to the auction house?

Exactly! I've been saying all along this would likely be decided based on whatever state's laws cover this case, and in accordance with Leland's auction terms the buyer agreed to, as to when that state recognizes an enforceable agreement has been entered into between the buyer and seller/AH, and the ownership and liability associated with the football would pass from the seller to the auction winner. And I'm guessing it is when the auction ends and the winning bidder is determined.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

Exactly! I've been saying all along this would likely be decided based on whatever state's laws cover this case, and in accordance with Leland's auction terms the buyer agreed to, as to when that state recognizes an enforceable agreement has been entered into between the buyer and seller/AH, and the ownership and liability associated with the football would pass from the seller to the auction winner. And I'm guessing it is when the auction ends and the winning bidder is determined.

Auction house literally promised the bidder would get the guy’s last TD ball. It is unable to deliver the goods promised. My view.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Auction house literally promised the bidder would get the guy’s last TD ball. It is unable to deliver the goods promised. My view.

I hate to tell you this, but you're wrong. As of this moment, that is the last football Brady has thrown for a TD in his career. And there is no guarantee he won't turn around and re-retire next week, or come back and get injured on the first offensive play of the first game back and never be able to play again, or get hit by the proverbial pie truck and be killed on his way to the stadium. That may be your view, but the courts cannot decide things based on contingencies like this.

So what happens if they go to court and the auction winner prevails and gets out of paying for the football, and then the very next day Brady re-retires, and this time it is permanent. Are you suggesting the seller can now countersue and force the auction winner to buy the football for their winning auction bid after all? Do you see the problem with your logic here?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

I hate to tell you this, but you're wrong. As of this moment, that is the last football Brady has thrown for a TD in his career. And there is no guarantee he won't turn around and re-retire next week, or come back and get injured on the first offensive play of the first game back and never be able to play again, or get hit by the proverbial pie truck and be killed on his way to the stadium. That may be your view, but the courts cannot decide things based on contingencies like this.

So what happens if they go to court and the auction winner prevails and gets out of paying for the football, and then the very next day Brady re-retires, and this time it is permanent. Are you suggesting the seller can now countersue and force the auction winner to buy the football for their winning auction bid after all? Do you see the problem with your logic here?

Buyer can refuse to pay and by the time it reaches the courts it will no longer be Brady’s last TD ball as was promised. If you think he’s not going to throw another TD, you’re probably wrong. As a Bills fan I can assure you the man can throw TDs.

Also, relax on the you’re wrong proclamations. As a head banging attorney I can tell you that’s there really good arguments on both sides here. It’s about choosing which one you think is right and making the best argument you can for it. The outcome here is far from certain despite your thinking it is.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Buyer can refuse to pay and by the time it reaches the courts it will no longer be Brady’s last TD ball as was promised. If you think he’s not going to throw another TD, you’re probably wrong. As a Bills fan I can assure you the man can throw TDs.

Also, relax on the you’re wrong proclamations. As a head banging attorney I can tell you that’s there really good arguments on both sides here. It’s about choosing which one you think is right and making the best argument you can for it. The outcome here is far from certain despite your thinking it is.

Did not know you are an attorney, good to know. But I am correct, and you are wrong, until such time as Brady does throw another TD. That is an indisputable fact, for now. And I don't believe there was any implied guarantee in the auction description that any court would ever view as a lifelong guarantee either.

As for the buyer deciding not to pay, and then having their attorney drag things out till after Brady does come back and hopefully throws a TD, that is exactly what I would expect many people to do, were they the auction winner. I fully understand the games that can be played, and the arguments that can be made by attorneys on both sides. I'm also aware that regardless of what was said in the description, there is no court I can ever see holding a seller responsible forever, should circumstances change much later after the fact.

Go back to my example in paragraph two of Post #112, and tell me if you truly think the buyer could actually have a chance to prevail and overturn the purchase more than a year after having bought the football. Oh, I'm sure there's at least an attorney or two that would take that case and make some great arguments, and of course get themselves a payday. (As already pointed out in this thread, the only guaranteed winners in this case would likely be the attorneys.) But I don't see any jury where the jurors have at least half a brain, falling for that kind of crap.

To me this case is very simple. When, under the laws of the state having jurisdiction over this case, does the agreement become enforceable and the potential risks and liabilities associated with ownership of this football pass from the seller to the auction winning. I do not know the specific state laws Leland's auctions are carried out under, nor bothered to look up Leland's specific auction terms all bidders must agree to. I would suspect Leland's auction rules stipulate the sales transaction becomes enforceable upon the end of the auction. and determination of the winner. I would also suspect Leland's has some banging attorneys of their own, who would not have drawn up auction rules and sales contract terms that go directly counter to the state laws covering their auction sales.

So to me it is pretty straightforward. Did this football technically become the buyer's property, where the risk of loss is now on the buyer, at the moment the auction ended, or at some other time? Like when the buyer actually pays the invoice, or maybe when they receive and take delivery of the football in question. My guess it is when the auction ended, and that the applicable state laws will be consistent with that.

You can talk about attorney arguments on both sides all you like, but if this case were to go to court it would likely be decided by a jury. So I'm looking at this from how an intelligent, common sense adult serving as a juror would look at this. Not at how many different arguments one or the other side's attorneys can come up with. Most intelligent people know that in any legal proceeding it is more likely than not that attorneys for at least one side, if not both sides, are going to be spewing out a lot of BS to try to win a case like this. I've been an expert witness, and consulted with different attorneys, enough times over the years to have a fair understanding of how this crap all works, and seen it in action.

If it turns out the auction rules and applicable state laws do support the sale being valid and enforceable on the buyer immediately after the auction ends, but the auction winner refuses to pay so they and their attorney can delay the case till Brady does get a chance to throw another TD so they can now use that argument to negate the auction sale, I really would love to see Brady finally retire before ever playing again, or sadly get some injury forcing him to quit, after all. Whatever, it will 100% confirm that football was the last ever thrown by Brady for an NFL TD, and the AH/seller can immediately cancel the winning bidder's bid and negate the sale for non-payment. And then I would hope they could sue the bastard and their attorney for all the legal costs and other expenses they had to incur, as well as lost revenue for the buyer's commission, because of what the auction winner tried to pull. And for even more justice, I'd hope the seller could re-auction off the football and see it go for multiples of what it originally sold for. I guess we'll just have to wait and see where this goes next. Will be interesting, that is for sure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOLOL. What you call spewing BS I would call fulfilling my ethical DUTY to represent my client to the full extent permitted by law. From the ABA:

A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

...or get hit by the proverbial pie truck

unfamiliar with that particular proverb!

[RedsFan1941]

auction sells a ticket stub from feller’s opening day no hitter. correctly markets that no-hitter as the ONLY one to happen on opening day. days after the auction ends, a no-hitter gets thrown on opening day. that sale gets voided too?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

auction sells a ticket stub from feller’s opening day no hitter. correctly markets that no-hitter as the ONLY one to happen on opening day. days after the auction ends, a no-hitter gets thrown on opening day. that sale gets voided too?

No because in that context the clear import is only that it's the only one that has happened SO FAR; there is no implication there will never be another one. Leland's arguably went further, but I say arguably because one could also argue they didn't.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

unfamiliar with that particular proverb!

You never heard that one before Scott? I'm surprised. Another variation is to say you got run over by the proverbial pie truck. It's listed in the Urban Dictionary as "getting hit by a pie truck" in reference to a very unexpected event or occurrence happening. I like to add the word "proverbial" as it makes the saying seem a little more profound. LOL

[Carter08]

Main thing is I want to know how it plays out. Think we’ll know? News was all over the sale. Hopefully they’ll cover the aftermath, if there is any.

[Smarti5051]

I think both sides have been fleshed out pretty well, so there is not really any novel argument to make at this point. The fact we are on Page 4 of the "Tastes great, less filling" debate suggests there is no definitive answer. As a newer member, I don't want to ruffle any feathers on this board, as I enjoy it. But, calling one side or the other "wrong" does not really advance either position. And, pointing to one's credentials to definitively state what a jury would or wouldn't do seems like an unproductive flex. Even though I feel confident I could get a verdict for the defendant with the facts presented, whether by jury or bench trial, I do not believe the matter is so clear cut that it precludes either party prevailing.

And, if my perspective can only be appreciated if accompanied by my credentials, I will say that clients foolishly paid the law firm I worked for over $700/hour for my thoughts before I left litigation 15 years ago to do something productive with my life.

[frankbmd]

Isn't listening to bickering lawyers fun?


Not when they are representing you though.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Auction house literally promised the bidder would get the guy’s last TD ball. It is unable to deliver the goods promised. My view.

Your view is wrong.

They did not make that promise. Literally or otherwise.

They are actually able to deliver the exact goods offered.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Your view is wrong.

They did not make that promise. Literally or otherwise.

They are actually able to deliver the exact goods offered.

Your view is wrong. See I can do that too.

It’s not going to be his last career td which is what they said in the description.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Your view is wrong. See I can do that too.

It’s not going to be his last career td which is what they said in the description.

You said they "literally promised" which they literally did not do, which makes you literally wrong.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

You said they "literally promised" which they literally did not do, which makes you literally wrong.

Ha ok. How do you interpret this? I interpret this as literally saying it’s the final touchdown of his career but I’d like your take because I bet it’s a doozy.

“If there is any item in the field of sports collectibles that needs no embellishment, it is this historic piece: the final touchdown ball of Tom Brady’s career.“

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

There is a binding contract between the buyer and seller. the fact that an event happend "after" the contract was entered into does not change the terms. Buyer has to pay. If he backs out, I would sue him for the amount he agreed upon.
But I practice criminal defense and not this stuff so what do I know?

Here's another question.
What if the role was reversed? What if Brady had announced his retirement the next day? The value of the ball would increase. Should the buyer have to then pay more to the auction house?

If the auction house wrote in the description that unfortunately the ball was just one of many in a long line of TD balls that will surely follow, the seller would have a right to be pissed if Brady ended up retiring. This is the reverse where the buyer has a right to be pissed that the auction house said it was selling the last TD ball of the guy’s career. That proclamation just seemed unnecessary. I bet they wrote it when there was zero inclination he would come back.