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

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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.

LOL

Peter,

In my defense, I did say I was looking at this from the standpoint of a juror, and not that of an attorney. I'm very aware of the legal side and how you attorneys try to always do things for your clients, as best you can. And most often do fantastic jobs. It's just that over the years I've seen and been involved in enough cases where I just literally shake my head and roll my eyes, and want to stop and question the sanity of the attorney whose argument or point is so insanely stupid or farfetched that I can't imagine anyone being that dumb, or anyone else buying into it. And yet, people do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Peter,

In my defense, I did say I was looking at this from the standpoint of a juror, and not that of an attorney. I'm very aware of the legal side and how you attorneys try to always do things for your clients, as best you can. And most often do fantastic jobs. It's just that over the years I've seen and been involved in enough cases where I just literally shake my head and roll my eyes, and want to stop and question the sanity of the attorney whose argument or point is so insanely stupid or farfetched that I can't imagine anyone being that dumb, or anyone else buying into it. And yet, people do.

Trust me, I’ve had the same experience.

[Lorewalker]

There have been a lot of great points and posts made on this thread. It is a fascinating discussion, because I was not the high bidder and nice to see everyone playing nicely too.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Trust me, I’ve had the same experience.

LOL

I'm sure we could swap some pretty good war stories.

[chriskim]

I called Leland's, they said they can't make any comments at this moment.

[Carter08]

BobC agree with your post mostly except this would probably be decided on a motion by a judge based on the listing and not get to a jury. I think it could go either way and will come down to who tells the best story and appears to be wearing the whiter hat so to speak.