Disgraceful lier

[sports-rings]

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

[RichardSimon]

The ball sold for $80, ebay buyers knew it was a facsimile.
Seven people on Net54, most of them experienced autograph people, expressed the opinion that it is a facsimile baseball.
Case closed.
Verdict for the defendant.
Full attorney fees awarded to the defendant.
Jeff that means you are out about $30K. all for an $80 ebay sale.

[buymycards]

Hi guys, Did you ever notice that when someone makes an honest mistake and they are made aware of it, they come on the board and admit it, but when they get caught with their fingers in the till they deny, threaten, and try to intimidate?

Rick

[chaddurbin]

[thetruthisoutthere]

I have a fairly good memory, and if my memory serves me correctly, one of the statements in the auction description read "This ball has 26 authentic player signatures in blue ink...."

[RichardSimon]

The guys selling history consists of $20-$40 fishing gear.
Guess a sale of $80 got him all excited.

[CW]

I don't think you to apologize for anything, Scott. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

In my opinion, that ball contained facsimile signatures. I'm not even an expert, but it was very obvious to me.

In my opinion, the seller is an idiot, and his sue-happy nature and inability to be a trustworthy seller are a big part of what is wrong in America today.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by CW

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Another odd looking piece on the bay, I contacted the seller regarding to no avail - no seams on the back - and unlike his other listings, he only provides a small snapshot of this piece, anyone else want to write this guy, looks like someone already made an offer on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Ty-Cobb...item48457c845b

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

The discussion and the threat involved slander. Slander is never about a truthful statement.

[mr2686]

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

Either way it still involves untruths and not truthful statements.

[thecatspajamas]

Either way, I really don't think Scott has anything to worry about.

[mr2686]

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

I think the time and trouble to be right is the problem. I agree Scott has nothing to fear in a short day in court, but I find it hard to believe that Jeff would be so anxious to jump in the fire over misguided principles that will cost him a lot of money. I am not an autograph expert as others on the board, but the neat arrangement of signatures is something I have only seen on facsimile balls. Signatures should overrun each other and go in all sorts of directions. In my opinion.

[thecatspajamas]

James, I was thinking more of the old saying "a barking dog rarely bites," rather than evaluating Scott's chances in court (which, as others have said, seem even less cause for concern).

I might also add that it was eBay and not Scott who pulled the listing. Ebay has a system in place for reporting suspected fraud, and can choose to act on those reports or not, with or without supporting evidence (in fact, in many of the report forms, there is no way to add supporting evidence, hence the confusion with which checkbox option was appropriate to this situation). We will never know if it was Scott's report or someone else's that tipped them off, as they don't even reveal that information to the person making the report.