Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There was a funny post on Blowout.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...8&postcount=98

Is that a real story about the arrest? I searched on nbcnews.com and I also did a Google search, and I am not finding anything about an arrest.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Is that a real story about the arrest? I searched on nbcnews.com and I also did a Google search, and I am not finding anything about an arrest.

It’s a joke.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s a joke.

That's what I was guessing after not finding anything myself, but it looks very realistic.

[FrankWakefield]

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

Thank you counselor. Now, for the prosecution. What are your said damages for bidders who won lots which are not recovered?

.....



.....

[G1911]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

you know that's not right.

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

Context my friend. Someone asked a specific question about requesting items back. I was in no way saying what you seem to think I was.

[Snowman]

edited

[steve B]

Well, that's been interesting.

Some industries have peculiar and particular defintions of things that seem off to people not in that industry.

I think that's what we're seeing here.
There's a dictionary definition of a word, then there's how that act is legally defined. And they don't quite match.

My wife is in computers, and we argue like this fairly often. My all time favorite one was a warning that read "virtual memory minimum too low"
WTF. how can a minimum be too low?!?!
Apparently it actually means that the virtual memory was set from X to Y and that X wasn't enough even if Y was more than plenty. Somehow even with my needs falling well within that range, it caused a problem. Until she got tired of me complaining and ridiculing whoever had written that and changed the minimum.

Been there on a very small scale. Won a small lot of cards on Ebay at a great price. The seller cancelled after, saying they'd sold the cards over the weekend and just didn't get around to removing the auction. (yeah right)
Did they allow a sale of something they didn't have? maybe? at least thar was their claim.
Did I feel ripped off? Yes, especially since their solution was to offer a discount on their very sketchy autographs.
Did I report them to ebay? Yes, and while they were off ebay soon after I doubt it was because of me.

Even if there was enough money involved, which there wasn't could I win a suit? I'm thinking no, because they had a borderline plausible explanation and I wasn't out any money.
Sort of the same thing here.