We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
RR Auction Sues Michael Johnson for Defamation, 14 Other Counts
RR Auction sued rrauctionlawsuit.com owner Michael Johnson on June 2. The complaint alleges 15 counts, including business defamation, abusive litigation practices, false light invasion of privacy, interference with contractual relationships, misappropriation of RR Auction’s marks and trade name, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and cybersquatting.
Johnson, a former RR Auction client, has an ongoing lawsuit against RR Auction that he tried to get certified as a class-action. That failed, because no one else wanted to join the class, so Johnson is continuing the lawsuit on his own.
You can read about RR Auction's lawsuit in a June 5 report on AutographMagazine.com.
Tags: cybersquatting, defamation, michael johnson, rr auction, rrauctionlawsuit.com
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dane on
-
That's the point: it can't be.
Party A guarantees the item to Party B.
If Party B sells the item to Party C, Party B should guarantee the item to Party C. Party A has no responsibility/liability to Party C. If the item turns out bad, Party C would have recourse to collect a refund from Party B. Party B would then collect their refund from Party A. Party C can't jump past Party B.
-
Permalink Reply by Carlos on
-
Lol Dane
I'm not talking about refunds at this point I'm talking about autographs
So you're saying an autograph loses it's integrity once it's sold? That's ridiculous
-
-
Nope. You said guarantee, not the authenticity/integrity of the autograph. Spell out EXACTLY what you're asking, because after I explained why a guarantee couldn't extend beyond the initial transaction, you made a huge leap to state that I was saying the "autograph loses it's (sic) integrity once it's sold."
The authenticity of the item is what it is: either it's authentic or it's not. If it's not authentic, then the purchaser has an opportunity for restitution from the party that represented the item as authentic. In each event, that party would be the individual who sold the item to the buyer.
Let's look at it a different way:
Party A sells a forgery to Party B as an authentic autograph. Party B knows it's a forgery and proceeds to sell to Party C. If Party C then goes to an authenticator who says it's a forgery, Party C can't go to Party A demanding a refund; Party C would need to go to Party B, who would then probably just sell it again to a Party D, since he already figured it was a forgery at the time of the original transaction.
You asked about the guarantee, which is entirely about reversing or resolving a transaction. A refund is a part of that resolution/restitution. If you're not asking about refunds, don't talk about the guarantee. If you're asking about authenticity, then either an item is authentic or it's not. That doesn't change between transfers of ownership, even if the representation of authenticity might.
-
-
Exactly Dane it's either authentic or it's not. That shouldn't change because you sell it thus the issuer of the guarantee of authenticity should therefore be accountable in some way. Right?
And yes I put guarantee of an autograph. And as you said it's either real or fake.
Don't get upset because you miscomprehended what I wrote. Sheesh
-
-
What did I miscomprehend? First you ask about the guarantee. When I respond to that, explaining about how the refund couldn't apply past the first transaction, you state that you weren't asking about the refund, but rather talking about the authenticity, and go on to infer that I made some ludicrous claim about authenticity. Then, when I respond explaining how the two (guarantee and authenticity) are actually separate, though related, ideas, you now say that you're talking about the guarantee again.
Carlos, you can't both say you're not asking about the guarantee AND asking about the guarantee. Those are two antithetical positions. Also, for, I believe, the fourth time, the original seller is accountable for what they sold... to the buyer whom they sold it to.
-
-
I was asking about the "guarantee of the autograph" obviously that means the integrity of the autograph and nothing to do woth a refund
Get lost Dane you're so annoying -
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
Carlos has been suspended for making demeaning comments to a fellow member. I spend him once before, for quite a long time. He will likely not be allowed back.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on
-
Safe to say that Carlos is "in the cornfield" right now. That's a GOOD thing Anthony, isn't it?
-
-
I wonder what people think of this site http://baberuthautographs.net or if Johnson will buy and then turn around and sue them for the same thing!
-
-
What great bargains on that Babe Ruth site! And "all sales final" "No Returns" I hope somebody sues them! The House that Forgeries Built
-
Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on
-
Bruce, anyone that believes they can get a Ruth ball in that condition for 1600 bucks deserves to be parted from their money. The site itself is a joke. very poorly designed, matching the crap they are selling.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
