Are auctions open for being sued?

[427sharpe]

Except that the Arbitors may turn out to favor the guys who bring them the bucks....the larger companies. There is a lawsuit progressing here in Tx on just such a scam, involving a law office/debt collector who led all his clients into arbitration...without revealing that the arbitor had no other clients beside the debt collector! Records indicate that the arbitor ruled in favor of the lawyer in every case...even when faced with black letter law pointing the other way. Arbitration is only a way to lose your rights to sue and be heard. I hate to admit it, but I agree with Evan on this one!

[What'saCobra?]

In florida, if an agent is aware of deep discounts on comparable properties and does not disclose this to a buyer, for whom he is engaged as a buyer's agent or equivalent, the agent can be held liable for the over-payment.

Proving it isn't easy, though.

Like the court cases against all the bigger auctioneers, when it looks like they are going to lose a case, they settle for a price without admitting guilt and demand a do-not-disclose agreement in return. So, the facts of the collusion, shilling, etc are rarely available to third parties.

Subsequently, they learn to cover their tracks better and develop better weasel-words to avoid liabilities in the future.

[Jamo]

Actually Tommy, Real 1 is a plaintiff's attorney, like that corksucking demo-candidate, Edwards. Since Plaintiff's attorneys take cases on contingency (they own a piece of the action if they win), they don't want a loser-pay system.

Imagine playing blackjack where you never lose your bet when you lose, but you win when you win.

I am a defense attorney. I get paid by the hour. I happen to represent employers...who get sued by plaintiffs attorneys, administrative agencies, etc. They never get the fees they have to pay me even when we win.

Imagine plaing blackjack where you lose your bet whether you lose or win.

Rule 11 is bullsh!t, as our state statutes of the same vein, and he bloody well knows it.

Plaintiffs attorneys are regularly among the biggest contributors to the Democrats.

They are spineless basturds who are afraid to really put their money where their mouth is.

Even their mothers hate them...they just don't tell them.

I kick their ass regularly and grind their faces into the dirt...haven't met one yet who's worth a sh!t. They whine and cry about being real when they are nothing more than mere replicas of genuine attorneys.

I hope this helps in your understanding of our legal system when you wonder why folks sue McDonalds because the coffee is hot, or Levis when they catch their dicks in their own zippers. These are the same folks who drive slow in the left lane or try to write checks or use food stamps in the Express Lane. It is their continued existence which has slowed the rotation of our earth and therefore brought forth global warming.

[Jamo]

Anthony...alternative dispute resolutions systems (arbitration, mediation) do indeed work. Generally, both sides pay their own fees and one-half of the costs for the tribunal (the arbitrator or the mediator). You either win or you lose, but you have to pay the kitty to play.

I have been both an arbitrator and a mediator...it works. Who doesn't like it? Why corksucking plaintiffs attorneys of course.

Anyone stupid enough to enter into arbitration which does not draw its arbitrators from AAA or some such other organization is a dumbass given how long such organizations have been around. Scams like what occurred in Texas only exist because dumbasses are allowed to walk amongst us instead of getting the phuk off the planet.

You do lose your right to appeal...you also get the case completed quickly with finality.

Just my opinion of course.

[David Kirkham]

Jamo,

Remind me to never piss you off.

David

[David Kirkham]

Oh yes,

Rule 11 bull...

My sister (attorney) was at a party with a well known judge who stated he had never and would NEVER grant a rule 11 sanction as it would put too much of a chilling effect on the system...

hmmm,,,,

Don't laugh...I saw him in action and you would not believe what people got away with in his court room. I learned something very important...lawyers lie. They lie to the judge, they lie to the jury, they lie to anyone who will listen.

Evan,

When is the last time you saw a rule 11 actually granted? And if so, what was the penalty? I'm with Jamo on this one.

David

[SantaFe66]

Well, this has degenerated into what we all can expect. The attorneys that chase cases are the scum and the defenders of the accused are the righteous.

Frankly, I think all lawyers need to be regulated and the system that has been created needs to be completely overhauled. The only ones that really benefit monetarily are the lawyers. It will never happen. Clowns like Edwards and Clinton are Lawyers that's why, they have the power and you don't.

The house I live in now was purchased with a contract that included a seller's and buyer's agent. My agent insisted on specific verbiage in the contract and, after the sale when I found my roof was bad (misrepresented by seller and his agent), and the septic system was trash (misrepresented by seller and his agent), I was able, with my agents help, to get restitution from the seller. The cost of remediation was borne by the sellers agent, my agent, and the seller. I got a new roof and a new septic system. My agent went up to the top of the heap in my opinion after this.

You cannot relegate your power to these people, they'll screw you every time if you let them. They really don't care about you and they'll run the other way if you don't nail them down legally. A lawyer that operates on contingency CAN be a better advocate for your rights, depends on how far he's pushed by opposing counsel and you.

BJ gets away with what they do because we want those cars so bad we'll ignore what is in our best interest just to get them. Same thing is true of real estate agents and their attorney's. Of course, everyone doesn't get the same treatment.......they did their homework.

Buyer beware!

[Jamo]

"A lawyer that operates on contingency CAN be a better advocate for your rights..."

Everyone has their own opinion...even those who think giving up to 40% of any damages won to their attorney AFTER the costs of bringing the action is paid for off the top.

Glad your agent had his/her eyes open...obviously the best defense to getting screwed is picking the right folks. Glad nobody sued you for having the roof fall on them.

I've been the arbitrator on several home purchase deals. Folks who buy (or sell) generally don't want to wait 2-3 years for a trial, and then a possible appeal. They get their rights interpreted quickly, and the case is closed. Why let someone "win" by making you give up by having to wait too long?

The only part of the legal profession which objects to overhaul are the plaintiffs attorneys. Alternative dispute resolution is favored by everyone else...consumer groups, chambers of commerce, etc.

[Jamo]

Getting back on topic to Tom's question (since I helped get it off track), I think What'saCobra hit the nail on the head. It's a matter of percentages...not unlike a Smokey Yunick method of building race cars. Push it to the limit until somebody screams...then settle it quietly and find another scheme. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about auction houses, real estate, mortgage brokers or whatever.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by David Kirkham

Jamo,

Remind me to never piss you off.

David

Oh I'm just trying to bust Evan's balls a little bit...

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Plaintiffs attorneys ... are spineless basturds ... Even their mothers hate them ... they are nothing more than mere replicas of genuine attorneys.

The truth is, the plaintiff bar and defense bar are pretty much the same. With the exception of the small percentage of truly altruistically motivated lawyers at poverty law centers and the like, it's just a money game. My defense firms work harder if I'm paying them than if my insurance carrier is paying them (because of the negotiated lower rates that carriers have with defense firms). They will swear this is not the case though; they have to, they can't say otherwise. My Plaintiff's attorneys only work as hard as I pay them; it's a business, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. At bench and bar socials, we all know one another, and most of us enjoy each other’s company. Just remember, both sides of the process are driven by money -- in major litigation where I have a significant exposure, I hire defense firms to monitor the defense firms that my carrier retains on my behalf. And what do I do when a Plaintiff's attorney repeatedly kicks my ass? I put him on retainer.

[CHANMADD]

It,s pure ethics. If the Buyers agent has been selected to represent the buyer then it is that agents resposibility to disclose all the facts as they may become known. In other words the agent must work in the clients best interets.
This buyer ,after asking for the appraisal, was denied, and had she had said appraisel she most likely would not have paid the price that she did,or she would not have purchased the house at all. I am a Realtor ,but I believe that this buyer does have some recourse to the agent and or the broker as all facts were not disclosed!!

[walsh]

I am a realtor inCanada.Here in the sale of a house you can be a sellers or buyers agent representing either one,however you can represent both and in this case you are called a dual agent. In this case you must be extremly carefull to be fair to both otherwise you could be sued for misrepresentaion.The seller pays the commission but an agreement is singed so that the sellers agent gets half the commission.Here you can suggest the market value but you would foolish to gaurantee it as this could again be called misrepresentation. Lots of agents get sued for this and its not funny ,even if you win you lose.

I watched the BARRETT jACKSON auction and heard the comments stating that this so called car was worth 1 million when actually it sold for 600,000. MARKET VALUE IS DEFINED AS THE VALUE A PROPERTY OR CAR A TYPICAL SELLER WILL SELL AND A TYPICAL BUYER WILL BUY NIETHER BEING UNDER ABNORMAL STRESS. I my business the car is worth only what someone will pay for it simple as that. What happens after that is the buyers problemas I didn't anything about warranties.

My guess is that selling cars does not fall under the same rules as say the real estate business and in that case BUYER BE WARE

[What'saCobra?]

Hear here!

Who would expect to find such accurate and useful advice and valuable admonitions regarding the legalistics of our unfortunately degrading transaction culture on this, our wonderful Cobra site?

i am regularly amazed and surprised at the depth and breadth of our collective observations, analyses and criticisms on so many significant topics, including our dear cars. My surprise could be simply a reflection of my own niggardly low and mostly disappointed expectations regarding the slow but resolute dissipation of our Anglo-American manly knowledge and honor, as reflected, if not led, by our amoral and avaricious political, legal and entertainment classes. Itself a sad commentary regarding my own mental posture.

But, i don't think my regular surprise here at CC is as a result of my own usually low expectations. Tom's question is itself an excellent commentary about both our time's mores and the various highwaymen found more regularly today within American trades and businesses and more tangentially, those behaviors of the insidious few that variously frequent our fine hobby.

Using a buyer's (or voter's) emotions to hide or obscure sure and important faults and disqualifications of a car or home (or pre-election politician) are both common and repugnant to honorable trade (or the political process). To detect serious errors in fabrication/design/sales processes (or of medical services or of public policies) by various illicit "professionals", require the use and employ of expert mechanic/inspectors (or willing and qualified doctors and political analysts) and effective independent legal advice from just lawyers and adjudicators.

Avoiding the courts is frequently very good advice. In populist cases it might exclude monstrously fabulous and erroneous settlements (think Edwards’ medical settlements here), not an error in public policy in most any case anyway, IMHO. But, private settlements, sufficient perhaps for the instance and individual, are rarely of corrective value to the public at large. Clapping 'em in irons is rarely achieved through private settlements, unless you break their bank or back, not respectively likely or legal.

So, public cases, rather than private settlements, are necessary to force legal change; which process is wisely observed by our Super Moderator J as itself controlled by other of the legal brethren acting (in the full Hollywood meaning of that word) as our various representatives, politicians and paid benefactors.

In sum, sirs, the law is an asymptote. It is an inside game of pocket-pool played by proudly amoral hired guns, drilled in both arcane minutia (i example the tax code here) and the development of special pleading exclusions (i refer to the various revenue letters), valuable detail practically available only to both their professional membership and their advantaged employers.

Yes, a few auctioneers/salesmen have been held liable and driven from the field. But, very few indeed have been adjudicated. However, as result of those few examples, the trade is today cocooned within shells and more shells of corporatised protections, insulated from real harm and justice by the fictions of obviously implausible deniability, but de facto prevention. Such a shell within a shell layering makes the Churchill’s admonition of keeping secret the code-breaking of the German Enigma rotary machine mere child’s play.

Occasionally, the sale of a single highly valuable item of perhaps mildly obscure provenance is by a single corpus formed for the occasion.

You can be assured that if and/or when the music stops on a compromised auction/sale, everyone but our intrepid buyer has a safe seat.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CHANMADD

It,s pure ethics. If the Buyers agent has been selected to represent the buyer then it is that agents resposibility to disclose all the facts as they may become known. In other words the agent must work in the clients best interets.
This buyer ,after asking for the appraisal, was denied, and had she had said appraisel she most likely would not have paid the price that she did,or she would not have purchased the house at all. I am a Realtor ,but I believe that this buyer does have some recourse to the agent and or the broker as all facts were not disclosed!!

And how exactly did this person get a mortgage without the bank doing an appraisal on the property? If the price was completely out of line at the time, the bank would not have lent the money. On the other hand I heard that banks were putting pressure on appraisers to redo appraisals when an initial appraisal was too low.

[CHANMADD]

In the article the woman states that the appraisel was withheld, not available etc ,and she trusted the agent as her representative!and she had a decent down payment so that even if the appraisel was lower the financed amount was still within the value of the property.

[1ntCobra]

And she has ran up $75k in legal bills? I wonder if that is more than she thinks she overpaid. It sounds like she likes overspending for houses and lawyers. Perhaps she should go to the next BJ auction so she can overpay for cars as well.

Regardless, I'm sure the bank did an appraisal and she was not very bright if she did not ask to see it. After all, part of the mortgage fees she paid, paid for the bank appraisal. Sounds like she should be suing her bank for withholding information she paid for.

[CHANMADD]

You are right. .."Buyer beware!!!"

[Fred Z]

The normal real estate agent that you find to shows you houses is working for the seller regardless of who the listing agent is. You have to explicitly ask for a buyer's agent for things to work differently and you probably have to pay that buyer's agent a fee yourself that is completely independent of the sales commission. Most people have no idea about the buyer's agent option. And if you know how the game works, you don't need that option anyway.

You have to remember that the normal agent showing you houses is not just a salesperson trying to get a bigger commission, that agent is obligated to pass any information on to the seller to might give the seller an advantage over the buyer. This obligation is either part of the Realtor code of "ethics", standard contracts or some nonsense. So you really have to be careful what you say around the agent. If you say, I'll offer $250K, but I'd go to $275K if I have to. You know what, the agent that is showing you the house is obligated to pass that bit about the $275K on to the seller, so that the seller can use that information when countering. It is not a two-way street, if the agent knows the seller is willing to take $240K, they will never pass that information onto the buyer.)

Sorry, but don't think so! I have been a professional for 26 years, and in Ca. and most places I believe, that is not realy true. Sorry to disagree....but agents representing buyers have NO duty to disclose to seller anything spoken to that agent! There are also forms, which are signed in triplicate......that detail this situation exactly! IE" buyers agent, sellers agent, and agent for both buyer and seller...(dual agent). Nowhere does it say that info given to an agent gets passed onto the other agent OR SELLER! just not true!
anyway, we are off the thread.........just wanted to shape this a bit more correctly. But, who cares? We are talking about cars.....and the BJ auctions.........and i do wonder what responsability they have!
fred z

[imagine2frolic]

Here in Florida when looking for a house you can contact a real estate agent. If they find a house of your interest, and the seller has an agent. Then they are obligated to split the commission between the two. The buyer has the right to bring someone to help protect themselves. The commission here is normally 6%, and the seller pays.

I have a contract, for my house, on the lease to purchase agreement with my agent at 1%, and if the buyer brings in an agent. Then it is 3 1/2% with the buying agent only getting 2 1/2%. The buyer agreed to work with my agent also, and the money that would have went to his agent will go into his own pocket by way of discount. EVERYTHING is negotiable in a deal, and you can't be afraid to lay down demands. The worst thing that can happen is they will say NO!

I sold a piece of property in Ca. The second highest grossing corner in the USA for auto repair. I sold it myself, and made my own terms for the sale. I had a friend from a title company help me write it up. Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING has gone smoothly for me. Unfortunately for the buyer he fell out of contract, and it cost him an extra 25% to purchase the property. The property rose that much in 18 months. That was 2 years ago, and I am sure the buyer is kicking himself in the butt now. Since property vales have declined. Especially since this week he is finally paying me off on the deed of trust.