[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.