Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

jayshum · #1 05-19-2024, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

It�s a joke.

That's what I was guessing after not finding anything myself, but it looks very realistic.

FrankWakefield · #2 05-19-2024, 11:08 AM

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-19-2024, 11:15 AM

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

Republicaninmass · #4 05-19-2024, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

Thank you counselor. Now, for the prosecution. What are your said damages for bidders who won lots which are not recovered?

.....

.....

G1911 · #5 05-19-2024, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

you know that's not right.

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 05-19-2024, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

G1911 · #7 05-19-2024, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 05-19-2024, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They were defrauded into bidding on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

This was obviously an effort to mitigate a no win situation. One could argue it was not the best solution and I get that, but to call it fraud is in my view unjustified.

G1911 · #9 05-19-2024, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They bid on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

Republicaninmass · #10 05-19-2024, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

Mark17 · #11 05-20-2024, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

Lorewalker · #12 05-20-2024, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

I think he is going to say in this case there was intent to harm because the house simply put the card there to attract bidders, assuming that truth came out. As to damages, I am guessing the house would have to produce a Doyle error card to the winner.

Peter_Spaeth · #13 05-20-2024, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

Mark, to quote one of my favorite legal quotes, and it may have been (gasp) Robert Bork, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Yes, your example feels sleazy, despite the no harm.

parkplace33 · #14 05-20-2024, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Mark, to quote one of my favorite legal quotes, and it may have been (gasp) Robert Bork, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Yes, your example feels sleazy, despite the no harm.

Glad you both brought up this topic, because I had discussed a similar scenario with friends at a card show this weekend.

My scenario was an auction house wants to sell a signed Ty Cobb bat in the future. No current comps for that piece, so the AH puts a fake listing in their next auction to get a comp. The fake listing sells, the buyer doesn't get it, bingo, comp for a future auction. Again, from reading this thread, most would not have a problem with this, because legally, no one is harmed.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #15 05-20-2024, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

Context my friend. Someone asked a specific question about requesting items back. I was in no way saying what you seem to think I was.

Snowman · #16 05-20-2024, 02:33 AM

edited

steve B · #17 05-20-2024, 08:56 AM

Well, that's been interesting.

Some industries have peculiar and particular defintions of things that seem off to people not in that industry.

I think that's what we're seeing here.
There's a dictionary definition of a word, then there's how that act is legally defined. And they don't quite match.

My wife is in computers, and we argue like this fairly often. My all time favorite one was a warning that read "virtual memory minimum too low"
WTF. how can a minimum be too low?!?!
Apparently it actually means that the virtual memory was set from X to Y and that X wasn't enough even if Y was more than plenty. Somehow even with my needs falling well within that range, it caused a problem. Until she got tired of me complaining and ridiculing whoever had written that and changed the minimum.

Been there on a very small scale. Won a small lot of cards on Ebay at a great price. The seller cancelled after, saying they'd sold the cards over the weekend and just didn't get around to removing the auction. (yeah right)
Did they allow a sale of something they didn't have? maybe? at least thar was their claim.
Did I feel ripped off? Yes, especially since their solution was to offer a discount on their very sketchy autographs.
Did I report them to ebay? Yes, and while they were off ebay soon after I doubt it was because of me.

Even if there was enough money involved, which there wasn't could I win a suit? I'm thinking no, because they had a borderline plausible explanation and I wasn't out any money.
Sort of the same thing here.

gunboat82 · #18 05-20-2024, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

Even if there was enough money involved, which there wasn't could I win a suit? I'm thinking no, because they had a borderline plausible explanation and I wasn't out any money.
Sort of the same thing here.

Yes, that's the long and short of it. There's harm to Memory Lane bidders kept in the dark in a very general sense (e.g., wasted time, opportunity cost), but not "compensable damages" in the practical and legal sense.

That's why most of the comments about Memory Lane's approach have been focused on their reputational hit, rather than actual legal consequences. They picked the approach that best served their consignors (to whom they owe a fiduciary duty), at the expense of their customers (where the relationship is defined by boilerplate terms of bidding).

I think Memory Lane probably made the correct call from a fiduciary perspective. They also made it clear that they're willing to deceive customers and waste their time if they decide it's in the company's financial interest. Their customers are entitled to be upset that they're on the losing side of that calculus, even if they can't prove calculable damages.

Peter_Spaeth · #19 05-20-2024, 10:01 AM

I doubt there will be much reputational consequence.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Memory Lane	calvindog	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-13-2017 01:01 AM
Memory Lane - Uncut W516 Strip Cards	T206Collector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	12-20-2011 03:20 PM
Memory Lane	YankeeCollector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	08-22-2011 03:28 PM
You would think...(Memory Lane)	mintacular	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	03-01-2011 12:15 PM
Memory Lane Selling Mint graded cards??	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	11-08-2007 04:50 PM