Auction House Fraud

[hblakewolf]

I have a question that possibly a lawyer can shed some light on..........

It seems that on a regular basis, items are questioned on this site that have serious flaws. For example, an auction house may describe an item as being worn in 1980 by player ABC, however, the shirt in question was a style first worn by the team in 1985, and the player attributed to this shirt first played for the team in 1983. Likewise, the manufacturer of the shirt did not make jerseys for the team in 1980, as described by the auction house. In summary, without a doubt, the shirt has been incorrectly listed and attributed to a better name player.

As a result, this information is forwarded to the auction house, however, the item remains active in their auction without any changes to the description.

One would expect the description to reflect this new information, or the item removed from the auction.

Because the auction house was informed of this, and there is absolutely no gray area, is this fraud on behalf of the auction house to keep the item listed without making any changes?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[kingjammy24]

howard,

interesting thread. i'm no matlock but common sense would say that if a seller has been notified that there is an indisputable error with their item/listing and they do nothing and continue on with the sale, then it seems that they're committing fraud. fraud being intentional deception.

of course, my first guess is that they'd say they never received any communication notifying them of the error. perhaps using read-receipts on email correspondance is a good idea for this reason.

i suppose it's also another matter if the issue itself is contentious. that is, it's not clear-cut fact. jersey size, for example, is sometimes hard to establish as fact. if i have a size 44 jersey up for auction and someone says they believe the player only wore 46, then i think the two of us could make strong cases for our respective positions and it'd be difficult to establish as fact that the player never ever wore 44.

however, as you mentioned, sometimes there are no grey areas. sometimes the issues are clear and factual. when you present every single game of a season, for example, and the player is never seen wearing a particular style of colts jersey. or when the roster shows that a player never played for a specific team in 1976. these are indisputable facts. when an auction house is notified of an error that is indisputable fact and they disregard the information, does it qualify as fraud? i too would be interested in others' opinions.

ultimately, i think it says a lot about a seller or auction house if they've obviously been notified of an error and yet continue to sell the item without any changes to the description.

rudy.

[bigtruck260]

If I email an eBay seller and they ignore my indisputable evidence and sell an item that is incorrectly or inaccurately listed, they are committing fraud. At that point, "I didn't know" does not work. I save every email exchange from eBay.

If an auction house does the same, they are reducing themselves to a dishonest eBay seller...at least in my book. The sad part is, many eBay mistakes are innocent and involve a seller not wanting to believe that a prized posession is not what they thought it was (though, as we have seen, there are the crooks in abundance too:mad: )

Auction houses have the tools, the people (yes, even Lou Lampson) and the hobby peripherals to do the proper research and triple check the validity of the items they sell. There is no excuse for a high-end auction house like Lelands or Heritage to deny critical errors. For the low-rent guys (won't mention names - but you know who) they are only concerned about paying another month's rent OR paying for the services of "forensic experts" to "authenticate" their items...and losing a grand on a jersey is simply too much of a loss to remove it...you get what you pay for sometimes....

Dave

[David]

Assuming there was clearly communicated and unquestionable proof and the discrepancy materially effected value, there could be fraud. If it was a civil situation, the dispute would be between buyer and seller only. A party not financially involved in the sale couldn't bring a civil case. There can also be a criminal case, if the fraud is common place and involving lots of money. Unless it was something like a 1935 Bronco Nagurski Bears jersey, one bad jersey sale wouldn't trigger a criminal investigation.

[David]

I add that some states, like California, have laws specific to the sale of art and memorabilia. If a dealer/auction house breaks rules, they can be fined in addition to any refund. In California I believe it has to be instigated by the buyer and within one year. The fine is minor, but it would be on the dealer's record. Selling something known to be badly described would fall under the California statute.

[cohibasmoker]

I have a question that possibly a lawyer can shed some light on..........

It seems that on a regular basis, items are questioned on this site that have serious flaws. For example, an auction house may describe an item as being worn in 1980 by player ABC, however, the shirt in question was a style first worn by the team in 1985, and the player attributed to this shirt first played for the team in 1983. Likewise, the manufacturer of the shirt did not make jerseys for the team in 1980, as described by the auction house. In summary, without a doubt, the shirt has been incorrectly listed and attributed to a better name player.

As a result, this information is forwarded to the auction house, however, the item remains active in their auction without any changes to the description.

One would expect the description to reflect this new information, or the item removed from the auction.

Because the auction house was informed of this, and there is absolutely no gray area, is this fraud on behalf of the auction house to keep the item listed without making any changes?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard, I'am with you all the way BUT let me play devil's avocate - if push came to shove and if a civil suit was filed, what would the auction house's defense be? I'll bet they would come in with a team of lawyers and their authenticator. A few of their arguments may be:

1) we hired the best authenticators avilable in the hobby;
2) we pay the authenticators whose knowledge and expertise we respect and as such, we respect their OPINION.
3) If we would end an auction for every item that's ever questioned, we won't be able to run the auctions because most of the items would removed.
4) Based on the above factors as well as others, we did the best we could to authenticate the item and the bottom line is, the item in the auction was advertised in "Good Faith".


Howard, I know my thread is going to piss you off but again, I am with you.

Jim

[Vintagedeputy]

I hereby nominate myself to be the Auction house Sergeant-at-arms. I will take all offending company president out back to the wood shed for a serious flogging! :)

Seriously though, I doubt very much that you could get a fraud case into court, although I agree that they are probably committing fraud if they know the truth.

[hblakewolf]

Howard, I'am with you all the way BUT let me play devil's avocate - if push came to shove and if a civil suit was filed, what would the auction house's defense be? I'll bet they would come in with a team of lawyers and their authenticator. A few of their arguments may be:

1) we hired the best authenticators avilable in the hobby;
2) we pay the authenticators whose knowledge and expertise we respect and as such, we respect their OPINION.
3) If we would end an auction for every item that's ever questioned, we won't be able to run the auctions because most of the items would removed.
4) Based on the above factors as well as others, we did the best we could to authenticate the item and the bottom line is, the item in the auction was advertised in "Good Faith".


Howard, I know my thread is going to piss you off but again, I am with you.

Jim

Jim-
Me upset? Never!

Suspect jerseys are posted on this site every day from some of the "largest" auction houses. I'm referencing those auction houses that don't employ outside authenticators, rather, provide their own LOA/opinion letter. Combine this with the fact that the auction house has been contacted with ROCK SOLID proof/evidence (i.e, jersey is described as being worn in 1980, however, the style was not worn until 1983 and the player was not with the team until 1986), and the jersey listing and description remains unchanged. The auction house does not respond to repeated emails and the jersey is auctioned to the higest bidder (or sap, in this case).

I don't think your arguement would hold water in a court of law, but then again, you're the cop and I'm just a marketing/sales director.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[cohibasmoker]

Howard,

That's retired "cop". As stated earlier, I'am with you in everything you say but believe me, in 25 years, I've been to a lot a trials and seen a lot of strange happenings. The guilty are not always found guilty and the innocent aren't always found innocent. Please don't be so naive to think that because you sent an auction house some emails about the authenticity of an item that is enough to prove "fraud". It's a whole lot more complicated than that.

This is not the first time you and I have had this discussion. Your pissed as I am as are others members of this forum but what we you do? Well, on a personal level, I think I know what auction house you are referring to. When I get their catalog, I throw it in the trash. It works for me.

As for my argument not holding water, prove me wrong. Just buy the item you are referring to and take whoever to court. We would all like to hear how you made out. If I am wrong, I'll admit it and eat crow. And if you are right, you'll win.

Of course you'll be out thousands of dollars for lawyer's fees, two years or more in lost personal time that you could have spent with your lovely family but instead, you wasted this valuable time going back and forth to either your lawyer's office, giving depositions or sitting in court only to be told at the last minute the trial has to be re-scheduled for a third or fouth time but hopefully in the end, you'll win and you would have proven your point.

Jim