Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[rjackson44]

Give it to powell do the right thing

[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)

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by 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?

A few pages back, Powell was ahead by a few thousand when the the hammer fell on the complete set lot.

Brutal

[theshowandme]

For those few arguing that the terms/conditions were clear in the listing, I disagree. On the surface it covers the bare minimum.

The absence of information on how one lot could end while the others continued is a huge miss by Heritage.

It should have explained in detail how this auction was set up. It should have also explained the absence of synchronized coding between the complete set and individual lots. It should have explained that the individual lots did not have a running tally and that users had to calculate the cumulative number themselves.

When you see all the conditions that played out that no one was made aware of from the beginning, the result is a disappointment in Heritage.

That small paragraph really should be around 12-16 sentences long with all the real rules/conditions that were in play.

[calvindog]

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

[felada]

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

[Powell]

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Powell

I relied on reading the lot, my account confirming I won and experience in bidding on thousands and thousands of items over 20 years. Did I sit down and read the “terms and conditions”? Of course not! Nor will I ever accept that I should have. That’s like the insurance company relying on the fine print to deny a just claim.

The whole “my account said I won” argument isn’t great.

I mean…PWCC just had an issue and had thousands of “you’ve won!” emails go out. Does that mean everyone should be awarded those items? Obviously not.

Obviously heritage should have ran this auction differently/better but the wording posted above in the set listing is very cut and dry.

Plus we all know as soon as we bid on something, we are agreeing to their rules, terms, conditions etc…even if they suck.

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

I paid my invoice for the Baker yesterday via wire transfer. I now have a receipt showing “paid in full” and my account balance has been zeroed out with Heritage.

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

[Powell]

And here the fine print doesn’t say you must manually and constantly add up the individual lots and can’t rely on the web site or that you are declared the winner in your account or that closing the set doesn’t mean you didn’t win or that you must bid on every lot and against yourself on the set and do so before extended bidding or your shut out.

[molenick]

I don't think there will be a re-do. If the individual bidders like Aaron were invoiced and paid for their lots they now expect to get their cards. The only thing that would stop this is if Heritage decided not to send the cards. But then every individual bidder will say what Powell is saying now....you told me I won, you invoiced me, I paid, I want my card(s). With the difference that Powell was never invoiced.

In the view of Heritage, while at one point Powell was told he won his lot, at the end of the entire auction he was told he did not win his lot. So in their eyes, he did not win and he was not invoiced.

What should have appeared on Powell's screen was a message to the effect of "you are the high bidder on this lot and no one else can bid on it...however, you may not win this lot if the individual lots surpass your bid" (in a shorter version, of course). The problem is they told Powell he won when the bidding ended on the group lot...which he understandably took to mean, it is over, I won.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I've come around to this do-over approach. Those insisting that the individual lots won in accordance with the terms set forth in the description are missing the point entirely. In a race like this, a key implied term is that the listings close at the same time. It's the only way it can work without forcing bidders to use shills to bid against themselves and extend the auction.

Every participant understands that if the total bid for individual lots exceeds the bid for the whole set, the individual lots win. No participant in his/her right mind would have placed bids with the assumption that the complete set would be closed early due to lack of direct competition, while bidders on the individual lots could keep going. As Powell mentioned upthread, that would make the process of bidding on the entire set illusory in a scenario where a deep-pocketed bidder has no opponent but himself, and it's illogical to assume that Heritage, the consignor, or the bidder set the auction terms intending to create an illusory process that prevents competition and depresses the final price.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by felada

Presumably the way this should have worked was the aggregate of the individual lots should have been a ‘bidder’ in the software. That way the high bid for the lot would have always been displayed and the lot would have remained open every time a bid was placed on an individual lots since it would have increased the bid of the set lot.

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hi Aaron
While I am glad you won the card, how would you feel if you were Powell?
.

Hi Leon, I hope you are well. I have been trying to keep my feelings and opinions out of it, for that’s when I get in trouble (especially on a public forum). I originally posted on this thread out of joy and excitement because I “won” the Baker. I did not expect nor anticipate this thread would go “KABOOM!”

I empathize with Powell. I do. I hope any pain or anguish this has caused him will fade over time. I share his passion (and yours Leon) for collecting and I wish you all only the best.

[Mattymc727]

I’m no lawyer, so I’ll refrain from fancy terms, but I side with Powell. This is BS. An auction house should have more competence than this for items this large. I think it’s worth a lawsuit if HA doesn’t redo the auction.

What if HA doesn’t even correct this behavior/error after this debacle? Make them.

[oldjudge]

I agree with Jeff that given the flawed auction process the only fair solution is to redo the auction of these cards. The question now becomes who is eligible to bid on the aggregate lot? Is it only those bidders who bid on the aggregate previously (that would represent a larger universe than just Powell) or can any prior individual lot bidders also bid on the aggregate? These questions would have to be resolved before any redo could take place.

[mrreality68]

From my reading (unless I misread) based on the email Powell said he got it looks like HA already made up their mind and giving the winnings to the individual lots and as a result not compensating or re-doing the auction on those items as still discussed.
Further I have not heard or read anywhere about a statement from HA or anything by googling it (Except this forum pops up)
Apparently they are treating it as business as usually and sticking to their terms and conditions and disclaimers and moving forward.
It is a sad situation with the way it all played out can only hope moving forward they improve their software to better handle/link the lots etc or they do not do this type of auction individual vs set.

[molenick]

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

[Centauri]

It seems pretty clear to me that this was set up from the start to be 2 separate, unrelated auctions. Both auctions were subject of the standard auction rules - if no bids after 30 mins, the auction is closed. Once both auctions were complete, the higher number would get the cards. At least one individual card bidder recognized that during the auction, so it was possible to understand the arrangement. (Someone said they texted their friend at 11:26 that the set bidder was going to lose to the individual).

The only way to ensure ownership of the cards was to bid both ways. As weird as that is, that was clearly the rules at the start.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Powell

I wired the full set price to Heritage this morning. I hope that they do the right thing. I appreciate the debate and everyone’s comments even those who disagree with my conclusions. I don’t think anyone disagrees the set lot should have closed if it wasn’t closed. I didn’t take any snap shots but Heritage know it recorded it in my account as a win and sometime Saturday morning changed it.
I had no doubt I won the set after the set lot closed and it was in my account as a win (I was underbidder on the Gherig and might well have gone for that if I wasn’t in a good place on the BG’s.). Bottom line I confirmed my win and went to sleep. I was shocked to learn the next morning from this board that the individual lots “won.”

Couldn't find an update to this in the thread. Did Heritage accept the payment? Send it back? Or is this still in limbo?

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by molenick

While I agree that a redo would be fair, I don't see how this can happen.

Not everyone who won a lot is on Net54. As far as they are concerned, they got an invoice and paid for their card, and expect to get that card. They may have no idea about the controversy and don't care that the process was unfair to one of the bidders.

Heritage can withhold the cards but I have no idea what that would mean legally. If Powell believes he has a legal claim to the set because at one point he was told he won on the screen (which later said he lost), the other bidders have a stronger claim because not only were they told they won, it never switched to telling them they lost, and they were invoiced when the auction ended.

And, no, I did not win any of the lots.

Also, I think it is a little unfair to make Aaron feel bad because he won a lot in an auction.

From a legal standpoint, until someone actually takes possession of the cards, it would be difficult for any bidder to prove actual damages (beyond wasting their time). Paying an invoice -- whether it's the individual bidders or the complete set bidder -- changes little in this regard, because Heritage could simply refund the money and mitigate the damages.

Getting a court to order specific performance as an equitable remedy (requiring Heritage to accept payment and turn over the cards) is very difficult, even when the dispute is over something as unique as this set.

[insidethewrapper]

If you can't outbid yourself, then I don't see how redoing the auction will change anything. the individual cards will be higher than the set. The rules were clear, the higher between individual and set wins. Also the rules are you can't outbid yourself, these are not new rules. Seems clear to me .

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

If you can't outbid yourself, then I don't see how redoing the auction will change anything. the individual cards will be higher than the set. The rules were clear, the higher between individual and set wins. Also the rules are you can't outbid yourself, these are not new rules. Seems clear to me .

If I'm understanding correctly, your take is that the individual cards will be higher than the set because Heritage intended it from the outset, knowing full well that (1) extended bidding on individual lots would continue after the complete set closed, and (2) competition on the complete set would be limited to one deep-pocketed bidder, so it was always guaranteed to close sooner.

That approach doesn't make sense for a business where the goal is to promote competition and maximize the sale price. The rules are that "you can't outbid yourself," but surely the auction format is meant to leave room for the complete-set bidder to outbid the individual lots as the price increases. No?

[insidethewrapper]

When this format has been used by other auction houses, were you able to outbid yourself on set or individual cards ?

[molenick]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

The rules are that "you can't outbid yourself," but surely the auction format is meant to leave room for the complete-set bidder to outbid the individual lots as the price increases. No?

That would have made sense but Heritage did not put in place any special rules for this auction. On their site, you can put in a maximum bid but that bid is only used if your current bid is topped on that lot. The set bidding was not connected to the individual lot bidding. Not only that, the set closed before all the lots did. So even if Powell could "bid against himself", the lot was already closed.

The problem is that everyone involved played by the rules but the rules did not anticipate this situation (which, in retrospect, they should have).

[molenick]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

When this format has been used by other auction houses, were you able to outbid yourself on set or individual cards ?

I believe some auction houses let you put in a straight bid that is higher than you need to bid to become the highest bidder.

I think in Heritage you can put in a maximum bid, but that bid just takes you to the next increment needed to be the high bidder (on that lot). It is then used as needed to top subsequent bids.

[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.....

[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.

[felada]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Hi David! What you are proposing solves only half of the problem, and the easier half at that. What happens when the aggregate bidder exceeds the individual bidders? At some point all of them will be closed out with no way to bid with the aggregate lot now ahead. How do you allocate this differential back to the individual lots if more than one bidder wants to continue? The system is flawed on an individual lot closing basis. I think the only way to handle this type of bidding is under a format where the full auction closes at once and where bidders can raise their own bids. You need a Memory Lane/ REA type auction for this to work. On a HA individual lot closing format I don't think it works. I also don't think it works on the LOTG format unless all the lots involved go into extended bidding.

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by felada

Jay I think the way it would work is the aggregate lot remains open until all the individual lots are closed.the individual bidders really bid independent of the aggregate lot but there is at least a link that shows if the bidder is high bidder in the lot and if the individual lots are outbidding the aggregate. Then it is clear to everyone what they really are or are not winning. This way the aggregate bidder always a chance to top the bid and then presumably a remaining bidder on an individual lot go go back and up their bid if desired. Then it becomes the back and forth that makes auctions last until 4am

You said the aggregate lot should stay open until all the individual lots close and then the aggregate bidder could have a chance to top the bid, but then you say a remaining bidder could go back and increase an individual lot if desired. However, you already said that the individual lots were closed.

The only way for it to work is for all lots related to these cards (set and individual) to close at the same time after some period of time when none of them had any bids. Also, bidders need to be able to increase their own bid if it is already the highest one for a lot so they can change whether the complete set or the individual lots are winning depending on what they are trying to win.

[felada]

Becaue it would essentially come down to two bidders. The one for the aggregate lot and the one individual lot. Both are open until one stops bidding. The other individual lots are closed. The aggregate lot bidder is bidding against someone upping a bid against the individual lot. As soon as that bidder stops both the individual lot and the aggregate lot would close because neither are bidding. Even if the aggregate bidde upped his bid it would be a change to a ceiling bid.

[felada]

The other consideration is the bidding increments. The aggregate lot bidder has a much larger bidding increment. If I was bidding on one of the lower value BG lots the next level aggregate bid would be almost over a 100% increase in the bid of the lot. Am I really going to bid another 2-3x the current bid to out bid the aggregate bidder to win the individual card?

[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.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if you're King Solomon what do you now do about it?

I am glad Heritage didn't follow King Solomon's advise and rip the cards in half.

I also feel that, that as it appears the individual lots have trumped the aggregate, Heritage in the person of Chris Ivy needs to speak to Powell and offer something to him being the innocent party here. Powell could cause Heritage a serious migraine if he chooses to go public. A blowoff email, given Powell's long history and the sums spent over the years, is imo insulting. It is clear that the systems people were not in sync with management or vice versa. AI?

While it is a small thing, Heritage benefited by reaping a bit more BP by going with the individual bidders.

What is truly sad is I doubt we will never see such a beautiful lot
of BP cards again at auction.

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

As typical of Net 54, there has to be hand-wringing over every possible legal avenue and people who just need to be contrarians. It’s very simple: the auction was screwed up by Heritage by shutting down the full set lot while continuing to allow the single lots to run. This was a failure which defeated the very concept of an auction. It is Heritage’s fault, period. No one else’s. As I wrote to a friend in a text at 11:26 pm that night, during extended bidding: “The poor guy who had the high for the set is screwed if we push it over.” Referring to bidding on the individual lots while the full set lot was closed.

The only fair resolution to all the bidders and the consigner is to redo the auction and if the consigner loses money from the new final bids, Heritage should make up that difference to him — BECAUSE THIS MESS WAS THEIR FAULT AND THEIR FAULT ONLY. Instead of spending days trying to cover their ass and lie to all involved, Heritage should simply admit they screwed up and fix it — at their expense.

I agree for the most part, although as even you noted at 11:26pm that night, this was outcome was predictable. I do think Heritage should extend the auction though. No need to restart from ground zero however. I prefer how PWCC handles it. They just extend the bidding from where things left off. All prior bids are still in place, and all eligible bidders are able to bid again. This is the solution I would offer.

But to just say Powell won is not an option. He did not win per the clearly stated rules. Regardless of how unfair it was.