Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon
I don't think they should make comments while an investigation is going on, but that is up to them.. Isn't that law 101? Or is that common sense 101?
.
|
It sounds like ML has communicated clearly and directly with all affected parties - which IS business critical. At this point they don't owe anyone else any explanations. I suspect as this unfolds more details will be made available to interested but unaffected (directly) parties.
For ML, Ryan and all other affected consignors and winning bidders, I am very sorry to hear about this and hope the thief is caught and cards recovered.
To all those who are offering could have, should have and would have scenarios I remind you that hindsight is 20/20 and "easy" to see looking back. As previously mentioned it sounds like this was standard business practice with little or no historical problem(s) and was covered by insurance. I suspect that practice will be scrutinized and possibly modified moving forward.
While I understand the question of running the auction with the knowledge that the cards weren't available, I also understand that it really was the best way to establish current fair market value for insurance purposes.
I have and know of others that in the past had issue with Fedex stealing cards and hope they are being investigated here as well. I think their $1,000 cap on "collectible" claims (it's in the fine print) leaves them ripe for incidents like this.
05-07-2024, 09:28 AM
Additionally.....
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode