Heritage Auctions - Boston Garters

[Snowman]

So are 90% of you guys all really going to sit here and continue to pretend that the listing didn't expressly state that you could win the set lot but still end up losing if the individual lots closed higher in aggregate?

In what universe is Powell the rightful winner under the terms set out in the auction itself? Half you guys are lawyers, and you really can't figure out this one simple little paragraph? It's not exactly a riddle.

The rules were stupid. We can all agree on that. But they were extremely clear. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. This exact outcome was very predictable. If you wanted to ensure a win, you had to bid on every single lot, including the set. If you weren't sure about that or how it might work, you could have easily picked up the phone and asked.

[Powell]

Strongly disagree. Of course the individual lots could win, but they should all close at the same time. Otherwise, the set option was illusory.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The issue here is timing. I can’t see how powell was on notice that bidding on the individual lots would continue after the set lot closed. That’s counter intuitive and contrary to the intent of the auction. I am skeptical that gives rise to a legal claim, but I think, placing the focus on him is not warranted.

[Powell]

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Powell

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

I'm going to change my tone a bit, as I genuinely do feel bad for you. But I don't understand why you continue to ignore what I see as the elephant in the room, which is the fact that the listing included the following warning:

“Please note that this auction will list each card as an individual lot along with another listing for the complete set. If the aggregate winning bids of the twelve individual lots exceeds the high bid on the complete set, the cards will be sold to each individual winner. If the price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set.”

Did you not see this message in the listing? And if you did see it, how did you interpret it? And under what interpretation can you possibly still believe you are the rightful winner? If you assumed all lots were ending at the same time, why did you make that assumption? That was not stated anywhere, and that's not how Heritage runs their auctions. You could see individual timers for each of the lots during extending bidding. When you went to sleep, you could clearly see that those other listings were still live. Did this not concern you at all?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Powell

I am a trial lawyer. I almost always represent the “little guy”or the underdog. However, I have very rarely sued in my private life. Most companies do the right thing. Rendering the set lot illusory is not the right thing. If I had to bid on every single lot to win the set then why have a set lot? The rules must be interpreted in a way that makes sense. And if contract law applies as it should the set was sold to me when the set lot closed. Last but not least, the whole point of an auction is to have a fair chance to win and I was deprived of my fair chance to the detriment of the consignor, Heritage and me.

No doubt Heritage effed this up by not keeping the set lot open for bidding while individual lots remained open. But in my opinion as I now see it, that doesn't make you the winner with a contract claim. It does mean Heritage should exercise its discretion to make it right.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by Snowman

So are 90% of you guys all really going to sit here and continue to pretend that the listing didn't expressly state that you could win the set lot but still end up losing if the individual lots closed higher in aggregate?

In what universe is Powell the rightful winner under the terms set out in the auction itself? Half you guys are lawyers, and you really can't figure out this one simple little paragraph? It's not exactly a riddle.

The rules were stupid. We can all agree on that. But they were extremely clear. This shouldn't have surprised anyone. This exact outcome was very predictable. If you wanted to ensure a win, you had to bid on every single lot, including the set. If you weren't sure about that or how it might work, you could have easily picked up the phone and asked.

I know Peter has already pointed this out in the thread, but I can't believe you are saying that Powell should have bid against himself. If he would have bid on every individual lot, that would have raised the price for the high bidder on the complete set. That bidder was Powell as well. No auction should require a bidder to bid against himself to ensure a win.

I guess Powell should have just alternated between bidding against himself on the set and every individual lot and raised the price to infinity?

Powell, sorry to read this happened to you on a once in a lifetime set. I know hindsight is 20/20, but it seems amazing after the fact that HA did not foresee that they needed to keep the complete set open as long as even one individual card from the set was still open.

[GeoPoto]

I don't think "bidding against himself is required. All (I'm not defending Heritage -- they were very sloppy and careless, to Powell's surprise and disappointment) that is required (and clear in hindsight) is for him to submit one-increment bids on each individual lot in the early going so that he could pick those bids up in overtime if the Set Lot closed first and the Individual Lots then went on to win.

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't think "bidding against himself is required. All (I'm not defending Heritage -- they were very sloppy and careless, to Powell's surprise and disappointment) that is required (and clear in hindsight) is for him to submit one-increment bids on each individual lot in the early going so that he could pick those bids up in overtime if the Set Lot closed first and the Individual Lots then went on to win.

I get what you are saying, but that doesn't seem like a viable solution, either. Some of the individual lots may well be closed by the time 1-2 of the cards drive the individual lots past the set price.

[brunswickreeves]

This may have been raised already and if so, apologies for missing it…

But is there a way to know if at the time stamp of the full set’s hammer close and ‘win’ to Powell, that lot price exceeded the aggregate sum of the individual card prices? Yes, the individual cards were still being actively bid on past that point because they themselves were receiving active bids. However, according to the stipulation at the end of each listing:

If price of the set exceeds the sum of the twelve individual cards, the victory will be awarded to the high bidder for the complete set. (HA)

[theshowandme]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

This may have been raised already and if so, apologies for missing it…

But is there a way to know if at the time stamp of the full set’s hammer close and ‘win’ to Powell, that lot price exceeded the aggregate sum of the individual card prices?

A few pages back, Powell was ahead by a few thousand when the the hammer fell on the complete set lot.

Brutal

[rjackson44]

Give it to powell do the right thing