Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[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.