Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It looks like it started with affirmation from a lawyer that running the auction without disclosing that the items were stolen was the best way to establish insurance value, and then Ryan drove it home by stating that consignors are the only real stakeholders, and that running the auction without the cards in hand was the best way to make sure consignors get a reasonable appraisal for insurance purposes.

Or we could look at it an alternative way, from a baseball card collector perspective.

We've heard from two bidders who won two of the 50+/- cards that were stolen.

Powell Miller who's reaction is Stoic as hell, especially after the Boston Garter shitshow, he's someone I would like to meet and have a sandwich with sometime. He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price

Daryl owns the only Mello Mint Cobb, (congrats Daryl) that card belongs in his collection and he owns it.

I don't see him complaining about the the stuff that rabbit hole central is complaining about, he just wants his card, he owns it now and is a fantastic addition to his set, just because he doesn't have possession yet is immaterial.

I'm a little hesitant to prioritize the opinions of folks that aren't in the 50+/- crowd and have no skin in the game, a lot of pearl clutching outrage on this sub.

I'd like to hear the perspective of bidders who actually own the cards in question.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Or we could look at it an alternative way, from a baseball card collector perspective.

We've heard from two bidders who won two of the 50+/- cards that were stolen.

Powell Miller who's reaction is Stoic as hell, especially after the Boston Garter shitshow, he's someone I would like to meet and have a sandwich with sometime. He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price

Daryl owns the only Mello Mint Cobb, (congrats Daryl) that card belongs in his collection and he owns it.

I don't see him complaining about the the stuff that rabbit hole central is complaining about, he just wants his card, he owns it now and is a fantastic addition to his set, just because he doesn't have possession yet is immaterial.

I'm a little hesitant to prioritize the opinions of folks that aren't in the 50+/- crowd and have no skin in the game, a lot of pearl clutching outrage on this sub.

I'd like to hear the perspective of bidders who actually own the cards in question.

What do they own?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

What do they own?

Nothing. But that’s a silly rabbit hole detail.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nothing. But that’s a silly rabbit hole detail.

I tend to look at things from a real estate perspective because that's the business I'm in.
If you offered me a property at a specific price and I agreed to that price but I didn't have to pay 1 cent to acquire the rights to that property but had the option to consummate the deal at a future date based on future value how is that not a win for me?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I tend to look at things from a real estate perspective because that's the business I'm in.
If you offered me a property at a specific price and I agreed to that price but I didn't have to pay 1 cent to acquire the rights to that property but had the option to consummate the deal at a future date based on future value how is that not a win for me?

It's a win, when compared to a baseline of nothing. However, of course, that is not the actual situation.

When people bid in an auction with a 'respected' auction house, the implicit expectation is that it is an actual, legitimate auction and the cards will be sent to the winner. Instead of sending payment and getting the card, in most of these cases here a very rare and difficult card you can't just go get another of, they have been given an option on a contingency that probably won't transpire. This did not happen because of a last second problem, but because the auction house lied and continued to lie running a fake, fraudulent auction for items they do not have and cannot possibly deliver and they knew they could not deliver. What a bait and switch!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a win, when compared to a baseline of nothing. However, of course, that is not the actual situation.

When people bid in an auction with a 'respected' auction house, the implicit expectation is that it is an actual, legitimate auction and the cards will be sent to the winner. Instead of sending payment and getting the card, in most of these cases here a very rare and difficult card you can't just go get another of, they have been given an option on a contingency that probably won't transpire. This did not happen because of a last second problem, but because the auction house lied and continued to lie running a fake, fraudulent auction for items they do not have and cannot possibly deliver and they knew they could not deliver. What a bait and switch!

Except the reality is the cards were stolen so I was never getting the cards in your scenario, so the only realistic option was that I now own the card at no cost to me until delivery. I was never getting the card since it had been stolen but I am now the owner of the card at no cost to me until I have the option to purchase at strike, 3 years down the road if the card resurfaces and is worth 10K more I'm still the owner and is on ML to deliver it to me at strike. I don't see how I'm damaged in that scenario.

Furthermore I would love to acquire no cost options on multiple cards in an auction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Except the reality is the cards were stolen so I was never getting the cards in your scenario, so the only realistic option was that I now own the card at no cost to me until delivery. I was never getting the card since it had been stolen but I am now the owner of the card at no cost to me until I have the option to purchase at strike, 3 years down the road if the card resurfaces and is worth 10K more I'm still the owner and is on ML to deliver it to me at strike. I don't see how I'm damaged in that scenario.

Yes they were never the getting cards, but they did not know that was the situation precisely because ML lied. I get this board really doesn't want to go with just, you know, telling the truth and being straight up instead of hosting a fake fraudulent auction. The winners are absolutely not the owner of the card in any way whatsoever no matter how many times you say that they are. They have an option on an extremely unlikely contingency. First stolen goods are generally not recovered, second even if they were, they will belong to the insurance company that people keep insisting is telling Memory Lane to host fake fraudulent auctions if the insurance company pays a claim. The 'winner' of the fraudulent auction gets an option to purchase if 1) the card is recovered AND 2) there was no insurance claim paid on. This is very unlikely.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Carter08

What do they own?

They own the cards they won in the auction and do not need to spend any money until they receive their cards, how is that not a collecting win?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

Which gives the high bidder all the power, No?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Which gives the high bidder all the power, No?

It's a contingent contractual right, but realistically the contingency is unlikely to materialize.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a contingent contractual right, but realistically the contingency is unlikely to materialize.

Maybe, is there a chance these significant cards don't show up and end up in some Russian Oligarchs collection? Of course, but if they do show up the ownership provenance is ironclad.

[Mark17]

So far this discussion has mainly been focused on establishing value, for insurance purposes and to make everybody whole (after it's determined where liability lies.)

Here's a hypothetical: Since the cards were mailed from out of state, and it's a large sum, suppose the FBI is, indeed, running the investigation. Maybe it was THEIR idea to run the auction as though nothing had happened.

If it wasn't public knowledge that cards were stolen, and more importantly, exactly which ones, maybe it was an FBI-initiated "sting" operation to try to identify unusual bidding behavior. For example, some person, or group, bidding up only the stolen cards, to inflate their perceived value. Or, hoping some bidder might somehow reveal knowledge unknown to the public, like asking unusual questions, etc.

IF this is generally what happened, then I would have to change my mind and say that ML did the right thing in working with law enforcement to solve the crime.

Another package was tampered with, but not taken. I wonder if fingerprints were obtained that could be cross-checked against employees or others with access to the package. Maybe this is the reason for their stated "optimism."

So... If it was done to establish value, I think that was wrong. If it was a key part of the investigation, under direction of law enforcement, I would unquestionably change my mind completely.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So far this discussion has mainly been focused on establishing value, for insurance purposes and to make everybody whole (after it's determined where liability lies.)

Here's a hypothetical: Since the cards were mailed from out of state, and it's a large sum, suppose the FBI is, indeed, running the investigation. Maybe it was THEIR idea to run the auction as though nothing had happened.

If it wasn't public knowledge that cards were stolen, and more importantly, exactly which ones, maybe it was an FBI-initiated "sting" operation to try to identify unusual bidding behavior. For example, some person, or group, bidding up only the stolen cards, to inflate their perceived value. Or, hoping some bidder might somehow reveal knowledge unknown to the public, like asking unusual questions, etc.

IF this is generally what happened, then I would have to change my mind and say that ML did the right thing in working with law enforcement to solve the crime.

Another package was tampered with, but not taken. I wonder if fingerprints were obtained that could be cross-checked against employees or others with access to the package. Maybe this is the reason for their stated "optimism."

So... If it was done to establish value, I think that was wrong. If it was a key part of the investigation, under direction of law enforcement, I would unquestionably change my mind completely.

+1

[Snowman]

If the insurance company does pull through and magically pays out on this rather dicey claim, then they would become the owners of the cards should they ever surface.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

Unless terms and conditions state otherwise ownership changes hands at the fall of the hammer (literal or virtual) NOT at the time of payment. So by law, the winning bidders could easily be considered the owners.

Auction law is weird, the situation is weirder, lawyers could get rich off of this kind of weirdness.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price.

No sir, once he is refunded it is not his card and not at that price. 3 yrs when the cards are worth half, try getting the people to.pay!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

No sir, once he. s refunded it is not his card and not at that price. 3 urs when the cards are worth half, try getting the people to.pay!

ML said it would be the buyers option whether he wanted the card or not. But my logic was flawed, if insurance pays and the cards are found it is the property of the insurance company.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

ML said it would be the buyers option whether he wanted the card or not. But my logic was flawed, if insurance pays and the cards are found it is the property of the insurance company.

Ah! Wasn't aware ML.said that. Again I won a psa 2 green Cobb 3 yrs ago and was never refunded and thr card enver shipped. If it turns up, I have no claim. Prisco auctions stole 50k via live auctioneers and nobody was made whole

[brianp-beme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda

If the cards are not recovered then the carrier will subrogate against BW due to their negligence. The small statutory innkeepers liability limit will not protect BW in this case.

Exhibitman:

Explain how you come to this conclusion, please. My understanding is that subrogees are subject to all the same defenses as their subrogors. If there is an innkeepers' law that protects the hotel against a theft claim from the guest (subrogor), it also protects against the insurer (subrogee) who assumes the claim under an insurance contract.


"Subrogees, subrogors...let's call the whole subrogate off."

Signature song from the upcoming Broadway musical "Subrogate: The Saga of Memory Lane"


brianp(arker)-beme