Ed Kranepool sues Beckett/Goodwin

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...705-story.html

Correction: he didn't actually sue Goodwin personally but the lawsuit focuses on his dealings with Goodwin.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...705-story.html

Correction: he didn't actually sue Goodwin personally but the lawsuit focuses on his dealings with Goodwin.

There is a thread in the memorabilia section.
http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=257236

[timn1]

It’s hard to believe that Kranepool would just make up this whole story out of whole cloth, but also hard to believe that Goodwin could think he could get away with claiming he never saw the jersey. I’m not sure what to think, but I’d be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Beckett has moved to dismiss, relying on the statute of frauds because there (apparently) is no written contract.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Beckett has moved to dismiss, relying on the statute of frauds because there (apparently) is no written contract.

That should fail, or would here in AZ (part or in this case whole performance). It appears he could also amend to allege conversion as an alternative cause of action--again, he could in AZ. That would allow for a claim of punitive damages.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The complaint begins by claiming conversion of the jersey, but for some reason does not assert it as an actual count. And I agree, I would think Goodwin's (alleged) taking possession of the jersey would take the case out of the statute of frauds which applies to alleged executory contracts as I recall.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The complaint begins by claiming conversion of the jersey, but for some reason does not assert it as an actual count. And I agree, I would think Goodwin's (alleged) taking possession of the jersey would take the case out of the statute of frauds which applies to alleged executory contracts as I recall.

Yes, Kranepool's part performance by delivering the jersey (his affidavit of doing so should be sufficient to defeat a motion for summary disposition) would take it out of the statute of frauds requiring agreements relating to the sale of goods over $500 to be in writing.

Further, I've personally had numerous dealings with Bill Goodwin over the years, both consigning and buying, and have always found him to be straightforward, honest, and above board.

Best wishes,

Larry

[Fred]

What if Ed has pictures of the jersey and can prove he was owner of the jersey until turning it over for auction? Has the AH indicated where the jersey came from? It didn't just appear in thin air. Someone's going to get hosed on this one....

[timn1]

I think the auction house claims it never got the jersey. Where did it go?

[oldjudge]

I have no idea what the truth is in this case, but the story reinforces that when dealing with any auction house have EVERYTHING that is agreed to in writing, and be sure to carefully read the auction house contract and strike out any troubling clauses.