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

[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.

[ALBB]

HA HA ..I am right and you are wrong !

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by ALBB

HA HA ..I am right and you are wrong !

No, you are wrong!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 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.

Carter, don't disagree at all that that could possibly happen, but this is one of the problems with the legal system we have, and how attorneys get all wound up in this minutiae of words, specifics, implied meanings and what all else, to the point that most everyday, ordinary people start looking at agreements, contracts, leases and documents that are like novels because they're so ridiculously long, and contain so much unintelligible fine print that normal people see all this and often have absolutely no clue what is being said and its meaning, and so just end up wondering........W - T - F!

I've often felt that if there was ever a law to be passed, it should be one that requires things always be written in plain, simple English that every ordinary person can actually understand. But instead we're constantly faced with all this legalese and lawyer-speak, that is akin to a foreign language to most people. No wonder we end up with as many lawsuits as we do with all the confusion and misunderstanding that is out there in the world.

And in this particular case regarding the Brady football, a decision like this should never be left to just one single person (a judge) to make. As Peter alluded to in an earlier post, wouldn't that be like basing the outcome on an n of 1 sample, where there's only one item in the sample that an outcome is based off of. Well that sure doesn't seem to be a fair and logical way to determine something in accordance to how normal people in our society would view it. For that you'd want something more like ummmm, oh yeah, a jury of your peers to be able to give a more balanced opinion.

But if you're right that a judge would most likely decide a case like this themself, a former judge, who is also a Net54 member, has already weighed in on this thread and seemed to favor the seller's position in this case. Still as you say, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But I still feel the real crux of this case revolves around when the liability for the potential loss of the football's value transfers to the buyer. Pretty much everyone believed Brady had retired or good and the football was as advertised, and technically it still is.

Have a good one.

[Snapolit1]

Ironically, if you pull up Lelands' terms and conditions, it's immediately apparent that they weren't written by a lawyer. Probably by some dude in marketing. Crying out for some lawyer to review them. Lack even the most basic terms and conditions one would expect to see with regard to significant commercial transactions.





QUOTE=BobC;2206278]Carter, don't disagree at all that that could possibly happen, but this is one of the problems with the legal system we have, and how attorneys get all wound up in this minutiae of words, specifics, implied meanings and what all else, to the point that most everyday, ordinary people start looking at agreements, contracts, leases and documents that are like novels because they're so ridiculously long, and contain so much unintelligible fine print that normal people see all this and often have absolutely no clue what is being said and its meaning, and so just end up wondering........W - T - F!

I've often felt that if there was ever a law to be passed, it should be one that requires things always be written in plain, simple English that every ordinary person can actually understand. But instead we're constantly faced with all this legalese and lawyer-speak, that is akin to a foreign language to most people. No wonder we end up with as many lawsuits as we do with all the confusion and misunderstanding that is out there in the world.

And in this particular case regarding the Brady football, a decision like this should never be left to just one single person (a judge) to make. As Peter alluded to in an earlier post, wouldn't that be like basing the outcome on an n of 1 sample, where there's only one item in the sample that an outcome is based off of. Well that sure doesn't seem to be a fair and logical way to determine something in accordance to how normal people in our society would view it. For that you'd want something more like ummmm, oh yeah, a jury of your peers to be able to give a more balanced opinion.

But if you're right that a judge would most likely decide a case like this themself, a former judge, who is also a Net54 member, has already weighed in on this thread and seemed to favor the seller's position in this case. Still as you say, we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. But I still feel the real crux of this case revolves around when the liability for the potential loss of the football's value transfers to the buyer. Pretty much everyone believed Brady had retired or good and the football was as advertised, and technically it still is.

Have a good one.[/QUOTE]

[Carter08]

Would be great for the Brady PR machine for him to step in and offer to buy the ball for the sale price.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Ironically, if you pull up Lelands' terms and conditions, it's immediately apparent that they weren't written by a lawyer. Probably by some dude in marketing. Crying out for some lawyer to review them. Lack even the most basic terms and conditions one would expect to see with regard to significant commercial transactions.

Now that is completely shocking to me if that is the case. Leland's is well established and has been around for decades. It is hard to believe they wouldn't have had expert legal counsel and advice in the drafting of their various documents and agreements.

If not, that may be changing in the not too distant future, depending on how this Brady football situation turns out.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was re-reading the last page of this thread and found this amusing. Judges do not make motions, they issue rulings. It is attorneys that file motions. I have looked at thousand of dockets and have never seen a motion by a judge. Remember they are the arbiter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I was re-reading the last page of this thread and found this amusing. Judges do not make motions, they issue rulings. It is attorneys that file motions. I have looked at thousand of dockets and have never seen a motion by a judge. Remember they are the arbiter.

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

Thanks Peter. Nearly 20 years of practice. Sigh.

[chriskim]

so Jeffrey Lichtman was involved, i guess one side of the parties wasn't too happy about it. It was a mutual agreement to void the auction.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

I see what you are saying. From my view the wording is a little awkward. Thirty seven years reading legalese. I still write simply despite the attorneys.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What Carter said is perfectly consistent with that. He didn't say a judge would make the motion, he said the case would be decided BY a judge ON a motion. That's perfectly understandable legal parlance.

That's what he meant to say, yes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk