Not if the items were misrepresented.
Buyer says "Star Trek" souvenirs fake
- Thread starter Aragorn
- Start date
Not if the items were misrepresented.
No, a plaintiff can get punative damages.
Rarewolf said:
case closed.
Perhaps they made another cause Brent nicked the first?
^^^
If the visor was part of Lot 63 - the plaintiff is obviously an idiot who can't read. If not; or the auctioneer said 'worn by' during the auction, he has a case.
^ I was at the auction, and their spoken descriptions of many items were either slightly off, wrong or innacurate. I don't know if that makes them responsible for this.
I own Avery Brook's red and black starfleet uniform from the first 5 seasons of DS9, sold as his screen worn uniform, with his name tag inside and corresponding wardrobe tags. It's a great thing to own and display, but it would affect it's value a lot if its authenticity is called into question. Words like provenance, authentic etc. are the very cornerstones of an auction house's life.
I own Avery Brook's red and black starfleet uniform from the first 5 seasons of DS9, sold as his screen worn uniform, with his name tag inside and corresponding wardrobe tags. It's a great thing to own and display, but it would affect it's value a lot if its authenticity is called into question. Words like provenance, authentic etc. are the very cornerstones of an auction house's life.
Wow! Not to get too far off-topic here...but that's a cool piece of memorabilia to own! Well done! :thumbsup:
I don't know anything about Star Trek auctions, but let me see if I have this clear.
Rarewolf is making the point that if the auction company originally advertised the product as "worn by", and then later makes some fineprint footnotes to contradict their false advertising; the footnote which says "That should have read 'made for' instead of 'worn by'" --- then that makes the customer/victim responsible for being duped by the false advertising?
If so, that doesn't seem right at all.
Rarewolf is making the point that if the auction company originally advertised the product as "worn by", and then later makes some fineprint footnotes to contradict their false advertising; the footnote which says "That should have read 'made for' instead of 'worn by'" --- then that makes the customer/victim responsible for being duped by the false advertising?
If so, that doesn't seem right at all.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Yes. If everything written and said by auctioneers tells us what is being auctioned in one thing, and then have one tiny footnote in small lettering somewhere that says, "You know, we're really lying when we wrote and say that, you should pretend it means this." it's Christie's fault. They're just plain committing fraud and use the small lettering as a loophole to keep from getting convicted for it. They should be tossed in jail for it.
Thanks! It is a fun conversation piece, and I've been meaning to start a thread with pictures
I have an autographed 8x10 of him wearing it, which will go on the wall next to it. I was able to score a free mannequin for it, but unfortunately it looks more like a roman statue than Avery Brooks, but hey, I couldn't pass it up!OT, it will be very interesting to find out what happens, and I'm considering contacting the lawfirm this guy has hired just in case there is a class-action suit.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
No, I don't get suckered. Yes, read the contract. No, the above is not the same. And yes, if a credit card company keep stuff in small lettering on a separate piece of paper and when they talk to you and the contract say something totally different than what's on that separate piece of paper and the separate piece is suddenly what's really going on, they should be locked away in jail for the exact same reasons.
Shouldn't the guy who first finds the fraud get a reward for it? That way buyers have a positive motivation to look for suspicious activity, as they get more than their original money back (with or without interest?), and thus sellers have a positive motivation to prevent fraudulent representation as they face, on top of everything else, large and not necessarily predictable fines. (Unpredictability is here a good thing: it makes it harder to budget for their frauds.)
3D Master
Rear Admiral
I think preventing yourself from getting befrauded or getting your money back when you are is motivation enough, isn't it? And sellers are similarly motivated, because they go to JAIL if caught committing fraud. No amount of money is going to cause more of a motivation not to fraud people.
They wouldn't be, unless they published their comments somewhere. One can only be libeled by a published statement.
Now, slander, that's a different question.
Similar threads
