Posted By:
MWHillerich and Bradsby's lawsuit against Robert alleges the following:
"Plaintiff has chilled the usual course of events in obtaining and displaying memorabilia, inasmuch as H&B has delayed the display of the Bat because of Plancich's actions and threats."
"Each day that the museum delays display of the Bat, H&B loses money through loss of Museum guests. If Defendant continues to discredit the authenticity of the Bat, or of other memorabilia in general, values could be decreased by unknown proportions which will certainly be injurious to Hillerich & Bradsby's right of quiet enjoyment."
Question: Does anyone else see the logical contradiction here? Wouldn't the added controversy make the general public MORE interested in coming to a museum and viewing a bat which has caused so much consternation among hobby experts and spawned multiple news articles? If museum revenue is truly what is at stake here, shouldn't H&B be capitalizing on recent events and IMMEDIATELY make the bat a prominent part of their museum display? They could even have Mastro do the official write-up.
Who wouldn't pay to see such a thing? I know I would.