Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

I would love more info on why ML decided to move forward with the lots in the auction. To me, that is very relevant before anyone here can possibly conclude if their intent was pure or not.

Assuming it was, what they concluded was the best of all the choices might have ended up being misleading but it was not being done with an intent to deceive or harm others. And I do not see it in the same light at all as shill bidding which not only has measurable damages but is also clearly done with an intent to deceive.

[Republicaninmass]

The straw man army has come home to roost. People can come up with any number of scenarios to support their opinion. Except the one surrounding the issue at hand, it's too much of a stretch

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The straw man army has come home to roost. People can come up with any number of scenarios to support their opinion. Except the one surrounding the issue at hand, it's too much of a stretch

Also, as I understand it from what someone said, if the cards are recovered, and assuming insurance issues can be worked through, the winning bidders still have an option to pay for and receive the cards they "won." Another indicator IMO this was not a "fraud" as I understand the term.