Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

Peter_Spaeth · #1 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 · #2 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.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-19-2024, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

G1911 · #4 05-19-2024, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did

. If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 05-19-2024, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did

. If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

G1911 · #6 05-19-2024, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

Peter_Spaeth · #7 05-19-2024, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield an unjustified result.

Republicaninmass · #8 05-19-2024, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

G1911 · #9 05-19-2024, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

I cannot possibly follow your policy that anybody who does not share your amount of $'s, religious faith, and creed should not speak until you define these rules for all the disgusting poors and sinners.

How much money must one have to express an opinion in a place you are? Is that in raw cash on hand or net work?

What religious view must I have to have an opinion worthy of expression?

What creed(s) must I follow for your approval?

Enquiring minds want to know

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.

G1911 · #11 05-19-2024, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

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.

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

Republicaninmass · #12 05-19-2024, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

G1911 · #13 05-19-2024, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

Which religions and creeds do you also believe should not be able to have an opinion considered like your special one? Your prejudices are the best part of this thread

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