Shanus-REA suit

[bobfreedman]

The format for the types of auctions that the Auction Companies run, makes sniping tools irrelevant, with the extended bidding periods, there is no reason to have sniping tools.

[Heritage Sports]

Dan,

Thanks for the mention. Gavelsnipe does indeed function for Heritage auctions, but (as an earlier post addressed) the extended bidding format does still allow the sniper to be outbid before the auction close. It's still a useful tool though, and great for eBay as it's free and as effective as any other sniping program out there.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

.....from Michael O'Keeffe

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1061842

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is an interesting and important lawsuit if for no other reason than the hobby prominence of the two men involved.

I found this sentence in the O'Keefe article particularly interesting. "REA attorney Barry Kozyra had argued that the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired and that the auction house expressly disclaimed any warranties." Leaving aside the legal merit (or not) of this defense, what do people think of an auction house disclaiming any warranty of authenticity as to items it sells, as a business practice? (While REA is the auction house relying on a disclaimer in this case, my question is a more general one.) On the one hand, I can understand that it would be impossible for an auction house to verify the authenticity of items, particularly memorabilia. On the other hand, is caveat emptor appropriate where presumably most items are described in a fashion suggesting they are authentic, and where presumably the willingness of bidders to bid, and the hammer price, reflect at least in part that the auction house has apparently put its imprimatur on the item?

I don't know the answer, but find this a very interesting aspect of this lawsuit, as it likely has implications beyond its four corners.

Incidentally, what the ruling means is that the court found that the plaintiff (Corey) alleged enough facts in his complaint to proceed with his lawsuit. It should be emphasized that this is a preliminary ruling and not a ruling on the merits. Assuming the case follows the usual trajectory, the next phase will be discovery, in which the parties exchange documents and witnesses (including nonparties) are deposed.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Well stated Peter. I'll only add that this doesn't seem to help Mr. Nash's credibility either.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It was brought to my attention that my previous post incorrectly stated that the disclaimer of warranty at issue in the case was that of Mastro, when in fact it was that of REA. My bad. I have corrected my post.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

.....from Michael O'Keeffe

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1061842

Interesting that the article's author had to state that '3rd Bass' is pronouced “base”...so as not to think that Nash came from a school of large-mouthed fish.

[drc]

We're not all outdoorsmen like you and Steve Carlton, Scott, and these things have to be pointed our for the rest of us. Growing up in the city, I always thought the tin can was the tuna's skin.

[irv]

Originally Posted by calvindog

James -- I mean Captain Obvious -- why do you think there is so much love still on this board for certain auction houses which are obviously crooked? Why do you think I took such a beating 5 years ago for proclaiming that Mastro was crooked?

I often wonder if you, and other lawyers on here, ever ask yourselves, when you continue to see members bidding/consigning with questionable A/H's and known unscrupulous others, why you continue to do what you do?

To answer my own question, I am sure you all do, but that aside, I am glad, despite the resistance, name calling, unfavorable reviews, etc, you still soldier on in the name of justice.

Thank you!