Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

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?

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

I would love to know a lot more details about this but I think it is safe to assume bidders were misled even if it was not done with malice or with any intent to cause harm. My guess is that it was their intent, despite what I now know about JP's past, to come up with the best solution to minimize damages.

In some respect the decision to keep the lots in the auction hurts them more than anyone else. There are clearly some who might be annoyed enough to not bid with them again because of this. For me, I keep going back to the lapse in judgement over shipping with no rep from the company present as to the extent of their wrongdoing. After that it was simply damage control and one way or another you are going to upset a group of people. Objective then is to piss off as few as possible.

[Carter08]

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

Theft was in OH, sale was in CA.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

The auction is based in California. I guess you didn’t know that?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The auction is based in California. I guess you didn’t know that?

No actually I did not.

[ClementeFanOh]

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

You don't think Trent is as superior as he postures? Hmmm.

[ClementeFanOh]

Lorewalker-

I'm stunned to see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved.

1) I didn't write that ML "owed" me a statement. I wrote that it's strange
they are remaining silent on the site. Surely some mention of a 2 million
dollar theft on their watch is worthy of a footnote?

2) If you call what those 3 have been doing a "debate", then your definition
of that term is different than mine. It's just name calling and repetition,
massive ego vs massive ego.

I hope things are going well for you in lovely Oakland.

Trent King

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

"Keep my (user) name out cha mouth"

I Just find it amusing, as I posted, people with no skin in the game are pontificating on their soap box about legalese and ramifications when they are fit to manage a men's room at a bus station. Again, ML likely relied on advice from legal or insurance, any other opinion is just that. Here to wit, an opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cold press in Brooklyn.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

And now the single biggest blow hard of them all chimes in!

Ever going to figure out how to use a space bar, return key or properly value a trade?

Your posts are not only unintelligible they are downright unreadable.