let me preface things by saying i'm not a lawyer. anything i say should not be construed as any sort of legal advice. that said, here is my personal opinion:
frank: hypothetically, you could sue for malpractice and the damages incurred as a result. many in this hobby echo the sentiment that "it's just an opinion". unfortunately, when you're getting paid for it, it's not longer "just an opinion". it's a professional duty that carries with it certain obligations including the requirement to perform due diligence. several professions are based around issuing opinions. doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment advisors all issue opinions and they can all be sued for malpractice. if any professional authenticator genuinely believes they're immune to legal prosecution simply because it's "just an opinion" then i suggest they seek out the thousands of doctors, lawyers and accountants who have been successfully sued for "just issuing an opinion".
essentially, you're suing for either nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance. ie: either he didn't do his duty at all, he did it poorly or inadequately, or he deliberately mislead others in the course of his duty (respectively). in my personal opinion, lampson is the poster child for misfeasance. he authenticates jerseys of styles that were never worn. he clearly fails to do his due diligence. some might also be of the opinion that his lack of due diligence is so egregious at times, that it seems to constitute fraud. that is, given his experience he ought to know that he needs to verify the uniform style, for example. when he clearly fails to do this due diligence, is it intentional? hypothetically, fraud is another charge someone could bring. in short, when lampson authenticates in a paid, professional capacity he has a legal obligation to execute his authentications to the best of his ability and to commonly accepted standards and principles. if he fails in this respect, then it's my personal opinion that a case for malpractice can be made. if it's shown that his failures have been intentional, then it may also be fraud.
"
I don't think you could sue him for a specific jersey being incorrectly authenticated"
sure you could. it's happened before. successfully. see: GFC and their TBTC Ripken. GFC was brilliant enough to decide to show their sloppy authentication on national TV.
"
Even if you purchased it, he doesn't give any guarantee for his work"
doctors, lawyers and investment advisors don't give guarantees either. however, there is the reasonable expectation that they have done their due diligence and fulfilled their duties and obligations according to accepted principles, to the best of their abilities, and to reasonable expectations. a doctor will never give someone a "guarantee" that their cancer will never return, for example. they'd simply say that, after considering all of the evidence, it's their professional opinion that it's unlikely to return. they have a professional and legal obligation to make their opinions as informed and as accurate as possible. if it was discovered that a doctor issued an opinion without doing any due diligence whatsoever, then it'd be a case for malpractice. many would argue lampson doesn't attempt to make his opinions as informed and accurate as possible. look at this jersey:
http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/A...ction_ID=22278
the description reads "..
it is safe to say that he wore this jersey for the majority of the home schedule given its great use". lou's loa on it says
"
Surprisingly strong wear on this white Oakland A's jersey would suggest it was Big Mac's main home shirt during the strike-shortened 1994 season."
in 1994, the A's wore 2 color names on the back. lou didn't even look at any images of the A's in 1994 to verify the nob. (or did he?) as an professional, paid authenticator he failed to verify the nob which is a common and fundamental expectation in authenticating jerseys. lou knew it and he didn't do it. seems to scream "misfeasance" to me.
"
Additionally, you personally aren't suffering any loss by him (i.e. that you could prove in court)."
a person accepts lou's opinion, they purchase a jersey based on his opinion as a "professional authenticator", the jersey turns out to be bogus. they're out thousands of dollars. pretty easy to prove those losses in court. "i paid $6k for a jersey that lou said was a ripken gamer. it turns out the orioles never even wore this style. the jersey is now worth $100. i'm out $5900". saying that the person didn't have to accept his opinion is rubbish. he was paid for it so there was the natural expectation that people would accept it. do auction houses pay lampson with the intent and expectation that people won't accept his opinions? rubbish. they pay lampson because they hope people will accept his opinion. when a doctor fails to do his due diligence, he can't turn to the patient and say "noone told you to listen to me. you should've done your own homework".
"
I also wouldn't think you could sue someone to stop doing their job."
you wouldn't sue lampson to "stop him from doing his job". you'd sue for malpractice and possibly fraud. realistically though, unless lampson is very wealthy, the weight of substantial litigation and the possible resulting penalties, fines, and restitution would naturally put a big damper on his authenticating.
"
He is producing "Letters of Opinion" and therefore are you going to ask a court to force someone to stop giving their opinion?"
no. hypothetically, you'd go to court to sue him to a) collect damages which have resulted from any mis/mal/nonfeasance and/or fraud b) have him face the legal penalties resulting from judgements against him. whether lou wants to keep authenticating after all of that is up to him.
"
Opinions can be wrong (as we see with him frequently) and that is why they are opinions."
it's not that simple. if you were right, there'd be no such thing as malpractice or even malpractice insurance. millions of doctors would rejoice. ever notice why the legal profession insists that non-lawyers preface their legal advice with the disclaimer that they're not a lawyer and their advice ("opinion") doesn't constitute legal advice? it's because people can incur substantial damages by following poor advice and they can, in turn, sue if such advice was given without fulfilling the necessary obligations. "it's just an opinion" doesn't fly when you're being paid for it.
if you don't want to be held liable, then sell the items strictly "as is" with no claims whatsoever as to what they are or are not. when you charge for your services and advertise yourself as a "foremost expert", then people will take your advice seriously. you have an obligation to perform certain duties in the execution of this advice. that's the reality in other professions and industries. if authenticators and auction houses are rarely sued, then i have to think it's because most hobbyists have actually fallen hook, line, and sinker for the rubbish line of "it's just an opinion". too bad that's not how the real world works. GFC found that out nicely on the People's Court.
chris: i agree with you but also, remember.. "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". at some point, noise becomes too loud to simply ignore.
rudy.
Originally Posted by kingjammy24
Reply With Quote