Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 4:18pm

Sam, you said:

Same buyer though correct? And no refund given?

As I recall, Epperson asked for a copy of the receipt but never received it. But don't rely on me for this. Roger joins the discussion on it early in the RR discussion:

http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/rr-auction-lawsuit-w...

Yes, same buyer.

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on February 1, 2015 at 10:57am

If they offered a refund why is this case happening?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on February 1, 2015 at 11:02am

That's the kicker.  We know they didn't immediately offer a refund, the first thing they did was talk to PSA about the rejections.  It's going to come down to how long of a process it was before the refund was offered and how difficult it was to get them to the point of finally offering a refund, if the refund was ever in fact formally offered at all before the suit.  That is why in the depo's the plaintiff's lawyer is focusing on how difficult the process was to obtain the refund, not the fact that the refund was ever offered.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on February 1, 2015 at 12:05pm

Sam, I thought the same thing. It seems the only hang-up was Johnson not returning the items.

Mike T, where was it stated the first thing rr did was talk to PSA about the rejections? I didn't catch that. Also, if I was RR, I'd probably call to verify the rejection paperwork was legit especially with this kind of money.

One other thing, how come the consignor(s) of the items is not being brought up? Couldn't RR go after them for their money back as well?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on February 1, 2015 at 12:35pm

It was part of the initial case study, also in the emails. The one email suggests that Mr. Eaton went to PSA to try to get the ruling reversed, not to verify the rejections.

Once the auction house authenticates and sells the consignors material the ownness is on the auction house according to their policies. Besides, they are standing by the items as authentic so going back to the consignor would only be an admission of guilt. They've come too far to go back now.

We don't know why Johnson did not return the items, but we also don't know when he was given permission to do so.  The case is more about the timeline and what the process was to get a refund than it is about the refund actually taking place or not. If he had to fight for a refund, which it appears he had to do, then he has a case. If the refund was immediately offered and he just refused to return the items then there is no case.

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on February 1, 2015 at 1:57pm

Wouldn't the case been thrown out if the refund was offered?

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2015 at 4:32pm

Apparently so. This is from the RR Auction Consignment Agreement:

Should a sold item be returned to RRAuction due to the questioning of proper title and/or doubtful authenticity (final decision on authenticity to be determined by RRAuction), you agree to reimburse RRAuction the proceeds you were previously paid for the sale of that item. This stipulation of reimbursement is without time limit.

Permalink Reply by Chad B on February 1, 2015 at 7:45pm

Thanks for the answer Ballroom. If I was RR when this first happened, I refund the money to the buyer, am ticked I lost my buyer's premium and go after the consignor. It is a hassle but better than being out so many thousands. The only problem would be if you couldn't collect from the consignor for some reason. Anyone know who consigned any of the questioned items?

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on February 1, 2015 at 8:00pm

Ballroom and Chad
I think the consigner isn't involved because of their statement here "final decision on authenticity to be determined by RRAuction"

R&R stands by their decision and haven't deemed the autos to be forgeries therefore the consigner is off the hook (that's how I read it anyway)

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2015 at 8:03pm

Chad, I'm actually not sure when that clause took effect. It's possible that the items at issue were sold prior to that time.

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 31, 2015 at 1:23pm

I think it's fine that information is coming out on the case. I do not think it's right to post depositions before a trial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard on January 31, 2015 at 1:36pm

fair enough , let me ask you straight up cause you always claim to be unbiased and when put on the spot refuse to respond

If you spent 10 k with someone and PSA said it was no good ...would you keep the item or want a refund ?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page