Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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 to an unjustified result.

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

Again, I have made no comment on 2 nor does this have anything to do with the definition. The bidders did not pay and thus do not have provable damages. This may have something to do with why I am not arguing whether or not they should be taken to civil court for fraud.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

.

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

You cannot deliver a product that you no longer have any power over . They covered up the actual facts to host an auction they knew they could not actually provide the product of.

There must be a way to defend this without denying easily ascertainable provable facts and insisting on fake insurance policies that do not exist

Oops, I forgot to check if my religion and net worth matches the Republican guy's before posting again. Darn it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

Again, just as with "fraud" and "fraudulent", I am going to use the definable meaning of the word in the language and not my custom interpretation or how I would like to think of things. Primary definition 1, as well as 3A, 3B. Memory Lane inarguably intended to deceive bidders as the entire point of this farce. This debate was more sincere when we were debating whether it was acceptable to do this than now where we are pretending they did not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't want any result here, and you can keep saying it until you're blue in the face but it ain't so. I am simply stating my opinion on whether there was fraud, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't want any result here. I am simply stating my opinion, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day. As I've stated I'm no fan of ML and have no agenda here. But I don't see this as fraud.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day.

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

[Lorewalker]

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

As many of you know, I consigned a large portion of the prewar items that sold last night. I am very content with the results, although they were all over the place.

Last night's auction contained about 75% of my total consignment, with other items to sell in the Summer and Winter auctions. When I first consigned, Joe and I (Joe is with Memory Lane) sat down and we estimated a low, likely, and high value for every card. Last night, the total aggregate sales price of my consignments, with the Buyer's Premium, was about 3% above the total likely-value we placed on the items. Thus, last night's entire consignment ended, in the aggregate, almost exactly where we estimated it would. That said, many individual items went for very different amounts that expected (both good and bad).

The D304s went crazy. Literally, nonsensical; but I wont complain! The Wagner, Matty, Lajoie, Collins, and many commons went for multiples over prior highs.

My T206 set and 1914 CJ set both did better, in aggregate, than I expected. The 1914 CJ Jackson was the bad egg of the entire auction -- someone stole that card. But most other items, including commons, did very well. Same with the T206 set; the Green Cobb did not do well at all, but that was offset substantially by the other Cobbs and many PSA 7s+ and strong results for commons.

The W600 Matty went through the roof, as it should have, considering it was produced in his rookie year (albeit not the first issue of his rookie year). The Tip Top Wagner did great, and my Planks all finished very strong. Almost every Ruth finished on the lighter side of what I expected, and a few crapped the bed. Wagners and Cobbs are definitely 10%-20% off their highs, but still strong.

Put it this way, it was a very large and diverse consignment and it ended at 102%+ (including BP) of where we estimated the likely value total to be. I am happy with the results, and now I need sleep!

And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.



And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?