Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

From all that I have seen and read about this here, Powell is the winner in my opinion and is getting screwed. I see a lawsuit coming.

What are his damages, assuming for argument's sake he has a cause of action? He's out nothing (I assume Heritage has returned or will return the wire transfer) and he has stated he had no intent to resell.

Often a claim that someone done you wrong does not translate well into a lawsuit.

[perezfan]

Powell.... So they wouldn't talk to you? Did they at least refund the wire transfer you sent?

[Snowman]

So are 90% of you guys all really going to sit here and continue to pretend that the listing didn't expressly state that you could win the set lot but still end up losing if the individual lots closed higher in aggregate?

In what universe is Powell the rightful winner under the terms set out in the auction itself? Half you guys are lawyers, and you really can't figure out this one simple little paragraph? It's not exactly a riddle.

The rules were stupid. We can all agree on that. But they were extremely clear. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. This exact outcome was very predictable. If you wanted to ensure a win, you had to bid on every single lot, including the set. If you weren't sure about that or how it might work, you could have easily picked up the phone and asked.

[Powell]

Strongly disagree. Of course the individual lots could win, but they should all close at the same time. Otherwise, the set option was illusory.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The issue here is timing. I can’t see how powell was on notice that bidding on the individual lots would continue after the set lot closed. That’s counter intuitive and contrary to the intent of the auction. I am skeptical that gives rise to a legal claim, but I think, placing the focus on him is not warranted.

[Powell]

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Powell

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

I'm going to change my tone a bit, as I genuinely do feel bad for you. But I don't understand why you continue to ignore what I see as the elephant in the room, which is the fact that the listing included the following warning:

“Please note that this auction will list each card as an individual lot along with another listing for the complete set. If the aggregate winning bids of the twelve individual lots exceeds the high bid on the complete set, the cards will be sold to each individual winner. If the price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set.”

Did you not see this message in the listing? And if you did see it, how did you interpret it? And under what interpretation can you possibly still believe you are the rightful winner? If you assumed all lots were ending at the same time, why did you make that assumption? That was not stated anywhere, and that's not how Heritage runs their auctions. You could see individual timers for each of the lots during extending bidding. When you went to sleep, you could clearly see that those other listings were still live. Did this not concern you at all?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Powell

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

No doubt Heritage effed this up by not keeping the set lot open for bidding while individual lots remained open. But in my opinion as I now see it, that doesn't make you the winner with a contract claim. It does mean Heritage should exercise its discretion to make it right.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Snowman

So are 90% of you guys all really going to sit here and continue to pretend that the listing didn't expressly state that you could win the set lot but still end up losing if the individual lots closed higher in aggregate?

In what universe is Powell the rightful winner under the terms set out in the auction itself? Half you guys are lawyers, and you really can't figure out this one simple little paragraph? It's not exactly a riddle.

The rules were stupid. We can all agree on that. But they were extremely clear. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. This exact outcome was very predictable. If you wanted to ensure a win, you had to bid on every single lot, including the set. If you weren't sure about that or how it might work, you could have easily picked up the phone and asked.

I know Peter has already pointed this out in the thread, but I can't believe you are saying that Powell should have bid against himself. If he would have bid on every individual lot, that would have raised the price for the high bidder on the complete set. That bidder was Powell as well. No auction should require a bidder to bid against himself to ensure a win.

I guess Powell should have just alternated between bidding against himself on the set and every individual lot and raised the price to infinity?

Powell, sorry to read this happened to you on a once in a lifetime set. I know hindsight is 20/20, but it seems amazing after the fact that HA did not foresee that they needed to keep the complete set open as long as even one individual card from the set was still open.

[GeoPoto]

I don't think "bidding against himself is required. All (I'm not defending Heritage -- they were very sloppy and careless, to Powell's surprise and disappointment) that is required (and clear in hindsight) is for him to submit one-increment bids on each individual lot in the early going so that he could pick those bids up in overtime if the Set Lot closed first and the Individual Lots then went on to win.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't think "bidding against himself is required. All (I'm not defending Heritage -- they were very sloppy and careless, to Powell's surprise and disappointment) that is required (and clear in hindsight) is for him to submit one-increment bids on each individual lot in the early going so that he could pick those bids up in overtime if the Set Lot closed first and the Individual Lots then went on to win.

I get what you are saying, but that doesn't seem like a viable solution, either. Some of the individual lots may well be closed by the time 1-2 of the cards drive the individual lots past the set price.

[brunswickreeves]

This may have been raised already and if so, apologies for missing it…

But is there a way to know if at the time stamp of the full set’s hammer close and ‘win’ to Powell, that lot price exceeded the aggregate sum of the individual card prices? Yes, the individual cards were still being actively bid on past that point because they themselves were receiving active bids. However, according to the stipulation at the end of each listing:

If price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set. (HA)

[rjackson44]

Give it to powell do the right thing

[Vintagedeputy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What are his damages, assuming for argument's sake he has a cause of action? He's out nothing (I assume Heritage has returned or will return the wire transfer) and he has stated he had no intent to resell.

Often a claim that someone done you wrong does not translate well into a lawsuit.

That’s for a judge and jury to decide what his damages are. I’m just an average Joe.

[Powell]

They will refund my money. I’m hopeful they will restart the auction at the point the set lot closed. Otherwise, my binding on the set lot was illusory. It was impossible to win. That’s the antithesis of an auction.

I thank Leon for his warm and supportive call.

I thank everyone on this board most of whom agreed with me. I respect the ones who disagree with me too except the one who called me a “sore loser” as that was uncalled for.

It’s not looking good but “it’s not over until the far left sings.”. Heritage can still make this a fair competition. I’m hopeful the will.

[Leon]

Hi Powell
It was nice getting to meet you on the phone call we had. You seem like a passionate collector who loves the hobby. Much the same as most on this forum.
I think this incident is awful, but is a human error. They happen. I am sure Heritage has a lot to consider. As I said on the phone, if it were my company, I would consult with the consignor, and I would be running the auction lot(s) again. And as I had mentioned, it is debatable to start the lot(s) over from scratch or where they left off. If it picked up where it left off at least 3 bidders are already known (if not more). A redo sounds like the best way to do it to me.

I would say -

We made a mistake and the s/w didn't work as intended. After consulting with the consignor we are redoing the lot(s). We apologize for any inconvenience.


Heritage is a great Net54 partner and I think Chris (hi Chris) and team do a great job. I will continue bidding and consigning with them.

I hope it all gets worked out as best as possible.

Originally Posted by Powell

They will refund my money. I’m hopeful they will restart the auction at the point the set lot closed. Otherwise, my binding on the set lot was illusory. It was impossible to win. That’s the antithesis of an auction.

I thank Leon for his warm and supportive call.

I thank everyone on this board most of whom agreed with me. I respect the ones who disagree with me too except the one who called me a “sore loser” as that was uncalled for.

It’s not looking good but “it’s not over until the far left sings.”. Heritage can still make this a fair competition. I’m hopeful the will.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintagedeputy

That’s for a judge and jury to decide what his damages are. I’m just an average Joe.

I would be very surprised if this results in a lawsuit.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would be very surprised if this results in a lawsuit.

Do you think the consignor has a case or not? He could be out six figures.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Do you think the consignor has a case or not? He could be out six figures.

I don't think so. I don't see the likely source of a contractual obligation to conduct an auction designed to produce the highest possible bid. Although obviously I don't know what specifically Heritage represented to the consignor.

[t206fix]

This reminds me of my son's football game last weekend. They played four quarters and at the end of the game, my son's team was up 34-32. Refs blew the whistle, and said that his team had won. It was very exciting because they were a cross town rival who had beaten us that past few years. We went home and he went to bed very excited. Unfortunately, when we woke up the next morning the newspaper ran the headlines claiming the other team won on field goal 35-32 to beat my son's team. We were shocked.

I guess the other team, after the game, kept playing and scored a last second field goal against themselves to win it. I guess the refs deemed the other team wanted it more because they kept playing. They claimed victory and pointed to something about fine print and we should have read all the details.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by t206fix

This reminds me of my son's football game last weekend. They played four quarters and at the end of the game, my son's team was up 34-32. Refs blew the whistle, and said that his team had won. It was very exciting because they were a cross town rival who had beaten us that past few years. We went home and he went to bed very excited. Unfortunately, when we woke up the next morning the newspaper ran the headlines claiming the other team won on field goal 35-32 to beat my son's team. We were shocked.

I guess the other team, after the game, kept playing and scored a last second field goal against themselves to win it. I guess the refs deemed the other team wanted it more because they kept playing. They claimed victory and pointed to something about fine print and we should have read all the details.

I don't under how this is possible. Can you post the link to the story?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What are his damages, assuming for argument's sake he has a cause of action? He's out nothing (I assume Heritage has returned or will return the wire transfer) and he has stated he had no intent to resell.

Often a claim that someone done you wrong does not translate well into a lawsuit.

Could it come under unfair and deceptive business practices?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Could it come under unfair and deceptive business practices?

I don't think so. It's just a poorly run auction. In any event, again, what are the damages?

[steve B]

What a mess.

When most auctions were live, I'd see that sort of bidding occasionally, and it was handled by auctioning the individual lots first, then the larger lot, asking for the next advance over the total of the individual lots as the opening bid.

I had a sort of similar thing happen with a bike auction.
Left bids by website on maybe 10 items. Bids I had to forgo other stuff to be sure I could cover it all if I won. Their system didn't handle bids electronically, more like the old fashioned system of writing the left bids down, only they accessed those bids by internet.
Checked the prices realized the day after the auction and it looked like I'd won 8 of them.
Monday, Tuesday, no invoice.....
So I ask, and they say I didn't win anything. Gave them a rough idea of the bids I'd left, and they said they had an internet problem, and couldn't access left bids for something like 120 items. So instead of waiting, they just kept going. Tough luck, sorry?

When I complained on the bike list I'm on everyone defended them.
I still won't bid there, won't visit the sale the day before, and will never consign anything with them. I do look when I get the announcement email, just in case there's something I really must have. But over a decade that's been a big no aside from one item that went for like 12K when their auction estimate was maybe 1500.....