Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

Imagine all the people who stayed up two extra hours though, Gary.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

+1

It was the best solution for a bad situation. What if the cards had been recovered before the close of auction? Unlikely but a possibility.

This way you have established current FMV on cards that would have been difficult to establish value otherwise.

You have established who the card belongs to if/when they are recovered.

You have established a solid value to compensate the consignors.

You have mitigated layers of litigation.

Yes it sucks and hindsight is what it is but I don't see a better solution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

Bidding, thinking it's an honest auction, then learning you've been used, is detriment enough. But consider the bidders who were shuffling assets around, selling things off, in preparation of needing money to pay for anticipated winnings. Could such a bidder "prove damages?" Maybe not. But being chumped is, again IMHO, not okay.