Joe B. has sued Leland's (follow up to closed "beware" thread)

paul · #1 03-18-2025, 07:23 PM

Thanks Raulus. I missed the original thread because it was in the water cooler section. The original thread (and the original post) focused on the 60/40 split. But the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Lelands took items they weren't supposed to take. That was kind of an afterthought in the original thread.

I'll be watching to see how this shakes out, and hoping for the reappearance somewhere of the Seaver items I was bidding on.

gunboat82 · #2 03-18-2025, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul

Thanks Raulus. I missed the original thread because it was in the water cooler section. The original thread (and the original post) focused on the 60/40 split. But the lawsuit focuses on the claim that Lelands took items they weren't supposed to take. That was kind of an afterthought in the original thread.

I'll be watching to see how this shakes out, and hoping for the reappearance somewhere of the Seaver items I was bidding on.

The complaint focuses on more than just the items taken. It also alleges that the contract contained contradictory commission terms that make it unenforceable.

This exhibit purports to be the entire contract (front and back of a single page). The "Conditions" page isn't signed, but it describes a sliding-scale commission structure that differs from the "60/40" split on Schedule A.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 03-18-2025, 09:41 PM

I suppose you could argue that the handwritten term on front reflects an intention to supersede the printed term in the form on back. They should have crossed it out though. What I don't understand is how the two trucks at Joe's house became the unilateral removal of items from Joe's storage shed, unless I'm not remembering right.

Michael B · #4 03-18-2025, 10:32 PM

On the back of the form the "Other Charges" would seem to justify the 60/40 split on the front, though I would guess that is open to interpretation. It is a bit cathcall and may be used to justify the overall compensation. I receive no benefit from this transaction so I will leave it to the lawyers.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 03-27-2025, 11:23 PM

For anyone interested in following this, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is now public, including perhaps of most interest Steve Verkman's Affidavit setting forth his version of events (entry no. 22).

tiger8mush · #6 03-28-2025, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For anyone interested in following this, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is now public, including perhaps of most interest Steve Verkman's Affidavit setting forth his version of events (entry no. 22).

Here is a direct link to document #22
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=tKDRnC7_PLUS_68X AshSYG8sQzQ==&system=prod

raulus · #7 03-28-2025, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Here is a direct link to document #22
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=tKDRnC7_PLUS_68X AshSYG8sQzQ==&system=prod

Nice of the motion to give us a shout out!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Follow up to I wonder.....thread	larietrope	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	2	05-29-2021 05:56 PM
How to sell sued baseballs	Jeff45	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	4	07-28-2019 07:26 PM
Getting sued for helping out	Pup6913	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	36	06-13-2012 09:41 AM
E90-2 Wagner follow up thread	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	11	10-10-2007 02:42 PM
meant to follow up on the Wagner thread-- Context	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	09-06-2005 07:37 PM