there's been a fair amount of discussion here about holding auction houses and authenticators accountable for negligence. unfortunately, most of it has been from a bunch of us non-lawyers. the general sentiment was that going after the auction house itself wasn't possible and you'd need to go after the authenticator. (of course, if the auction house keeps the info for their authenticators a secret then that poses a problem). many seemed frustrated that the house would point to the authenticator and certain authenticators are apparently unable to be reached by any means possible. others would point to the auction house and say the issue needed to be resolved with them and the house, in turn, would point to the authenticator and say they were responsible. it was a fantastic little system where both would be absolved and the buyer would be left holding the bag. whilst reading the old forum, i came across this little gem again. for those who may have missed it years ago:
GFC didn't even sell the jersey; they simply authenticated it and their "it's only an opinion!" line apparently didn't hold any water in court. i think it's fantastic that john cherpock did what he did, rather than simply grouse and live with it.
rudy.
GFC didn't even sell the jersey; they simply authenticated it and their "it's only an opinion!" line apparently didn't hold any water in court. i think it's fantastic that john cherpock did what he did, rather than simply grouse and live with it.
rudy.
Comment