Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They were defrauded into bidding on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

This was obviously an effort to mitigate a no win situation. One could argue it was not the best solution and I get that, but to call it fraud is in my view unjustified.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They bid on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did . If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

[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?"

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?"

I think he is going to say in this case there was intent to harm because the house simply put the card there to attract bidders, assuming that truth came out. As to damages, I am guessing the house would have to produce a Doyle error card to the winner.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?"

Mark, to quote one of my favorite legal quotes, and it may have been (gasp) Robert Bork, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Yes, your example feels sleazy, despite the no harm.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mark, to quote one of my favorite legal quotes, and it may have been (gasp) Robert Bork, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Yes, your example feels sleazy, despite the no harm.

Glad you both brought up this topic, because I had discussed a similar scenario with friends at a card show this weekend.

My scenario was an auction house wants to sell a signed Ty Cobb bat in the future. No current comps for that piece, so the AH puts a fake listing in their next auction to get a comp. The fake listing sells, the buyer doesn't get it, bingo, comp for a future auction. Again, from reading this thread, most would not have a problem with this, because legally, no one is harmed.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Glad you both brought up this topic, because I had discussed a similar scenario with friends at a card show this weekend.

My scenario was an auction house wants to sell a signed Ty Cobb bat in the future. No current comps for that piece, so the AH puts a fake listing in their next auction to get a comp. The fake listing sells, the buyer doesn't get it, bingo, comp for a future auction. Again, from reading this thread, most would not have a problem with this, because legally, no one is harmed.

A few years ago, in a thread regarding shill bidding, we discussed this notion of fake comps (items bid up by shill bidders who don't pay,) and then the general outcry was that everyone was harmed by the false value information it put into the market.

But now the standard seems to have shifted, for some, to "No harm, no foul."

Shill (fake) bidding is bad; phantom auction items are okay. And what's weird is, only half of us see the hypocrisy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

A few years ago, in a thread regarding shill bidding, we discussed this notion of fake comps (items bid up by shill bidders who don't pay,) and then the general outcry was that everyone was harmed by the false value information it put into the market.

But now the standard seems to have shifted, for some, to "No harm, no foul."

Shill (fake) bidding is bad; phantom auction items are okay. And what's weird is, only half of us see the hypocrisy.

The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?

So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.