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 Steve Cyrkin, Admin on
-
Great! They won't be open again until Monday, anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by michelle on
-
Thanks for that GP. I think the confusion around the pre certified PSA issue is an important issue to resolve.
Maybe someone on the forum knows the answer to this question that has been puzzling me. I don't write as well or as clearly as some of you so you will have to bear with me.
RR don't take ccards any more because of the number of chargebacks from customers. But do people think major third party authenticators were involved , at the request of these customers, in deciding these purchases were non genuine? I ask this because when I needed to do chargeback for an item (not from R&R) I had to get credible supporting evidence to back up my claims that the autograph was not genuine and it wasn't as easy as I thought it would be for the chargeback to be upheld. Did R & R not dispute any of these chargebacks?
-
Permalink Reply by Bernie on
-
Regarding the pre cert, and Mike T comments, I dearly would like to agree but I keep finding flaws in the logic
Am I to understand that, on a pre cert item (the ones where a full LoA is included is very clear to me), if I pay for the TPA LoA, then I give up the right to return in the 5 year period b/c it came delivered with a TPA LoA? So, the only way to retain the warranty is to decline Purchasing the LoA? This is the "Non sequitur" I can't seem to get around
On credit cards, I seriously doubt (but have no evidence pro nor con) that a chargeback can be made 5 years down the road. I can see that 30, 90 days and 1 year would be reasonable limits, but 5 years would be very difficult to see that possibility. If you accept this premise, the reason for dropping credit card payments really boils down to seller having a stronger burden of proof on a dispute, although Michelle is correct, as recently I have seen credit card companies requiring far more information from the buyer (it was a $12 chargeback, and I am positive they spent more $ on the paperwork than the amount in question, which in the end, was credited....)
-
Permalink Reply by Mike T on
-
I understand the pre-cert concern, I don't think the language in their terms is clear enough to make a call either way. That will have to be a question for them to answer and maybe they will adjust their terms to make it more clear.
-
Permalink Reply by Gratefulphish on
-
I don't believe that any credit card company would consider a charge-back more than maybe six months maximum, but certainly not five years down the road. They would be inundated with people trying to return everything from TVs to toasters, if there was that long of a charge-back period. The CC companies have a reasonable right to expect a customer to act diligently in such matters.
I think that RR dropped both CCs and Paypal, as I understand they also did, simply because it does make it more difficult to return an item. If you pay by check, wire or money order, you have no rights except what RR allows under their terms and conditions. I don't think that I would ever buy anything from them based upon that alone.
-
-
I know exactly where you are coming from GP. But I was wondering what reasons did customers give for using chargeback in the recent past which was the reason R & R gave for not accepting ccards or paypal anymore ? 'It doesn't match my wallpaper when hang on the wall' from an R & R customer hopefully would not constitute a chargeback being upheld!!!
-
-
The only reason that I know of that a credit card company would allow a chargeback, is if the item is not authentic as described. They are not generally there to force companies to take any return, from any customer, for any reason. They would go broke trying to chase back and forth between sellers and buyers. But, if you have a legitimate complaint that the item is not authentic, then you have a valid basis to seek a chargeback.
-
Permalink Reply by Dane on
-
I recall chargebacks being allowed for two years (maybe more) from date of purchase, assuming you never paid off your balance in that time. Otherwise, I think the 180 days sounds appropriate.
-
-
I realize that this is in the middle of the thread, but otherwise it was going to nest four levels deep into another unrelated part of this thread.
Here is a proposed first draft of questions to RR Auctions regarding their new changed guarantee of authenticity, and their new terms and conditions. We can discuss adding subtracting or rephrasing any of them.
Proposed List of RR Auction Questions
1. What is the term of the current RR Auction guarantee of authenticity?
2. What is the difference between an Auction Certificate, and a Letter of Authenticity?
3. Is the Auction Certificate transferable?
4. Could a subsequent purchaser of the item from the original Bidder, return an item within the five year period, if it was subsequently determined not to be authentic?
5. Has RR Auction stopped issuing Letters of Authenticity?
6. If an auction item has a “pre-certification” from PSA or any other TPA entity, does RR still back the item with any form of guarantee of authenticity?
7. If a “pre-certified” PSA item was later determined not to be authentic by REAL or another entity, can the Bidder return the item to RR Auction?
8. Is the “pre-certification” considered by RR Auction to be a COA, LOA or “its equivalent” for purposes of limiting or negating your guarantee of authenticity?
9. If an item is “pre-certified” and the Bidder pays for the COA/LOA, does that negate any further guarantee by RR Auction?
10. If RR Auction sells an item that came with a previously issued COA/LOA in the possession of the consignor, i.e., not an item submitted by RR to the TPA or otherwise “pre-certified by RR Auction, is that TPA the only source of recourse a Bidder would have if the item was later determined not to be authentic?
11. Are you still a member of UACC, and if so, do you still maintain their mandatory lifetime guarantee of authenticity and right to return items determined not to be authentic?
-
-
Am I the only one who thinks the guarantee of an autograph should be transferable? Like how does it become not authentic when someone else buys it?
-
-
I explained this earlier, Carlos, but here goes again:
Party A sells Michael Jackson autograph to Party B for $700 before MJ dies.
Party B sells MJ autograph to Party C for $3800 after MJ dies. Party C submits autograph to PSA, who fails it.
Party A shouldn't be liable for $3800 or a replacement to Party C. Party A is liable to refund ($700) or replacement (at the seller's option) with receipt of purchase, to Party B. The guarantee is non-transferable, even though the guarantee may be for a lifetime. At no time will Party A be liable to refund or replacement (of similar to original purchase value) to anyone other than Party B.
To me, it seems straight forward that a guarantee should never extend beyond parties (or their representatives) to the original transaction.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
