Interview with MIKE BURKEY--the art dealer's perspective on OCAL

[Terry Doyle]

Now I'm a shill for Glen because of my views? That's silly.

 

The idea stonecutter, is that anonymous posters, like the KKK, often hide behind anonymity to say or do things that they wouldn't normally say, or do, if their identity were otherwise known.

 

Of course they differ tremendously in degree, I agree, but the type/concept is the same.

 

Online anonymity often creates a mob mentality and makes it easier to attack without consequence.

 

Rob

 

 

I'm still running from the lynch-mob . . .

 

 

Hey shouldn't you be posting in a certain other thread?

 

I was suffering from scanning-fatigue and needed to take a break.

 

Now I need a few beers and I'll soon be right as rain

[blowout]

Nexus- can you cut and paste for those of us who either seen members of the yahoo group or have poor search skills? Thanks.

 

Is someone prepared to cut and paste the main text of 'the contract' into this thread from the comicart-l archives? Either Nexus, or someone else who has access to it?

 

It would be great reference for those of us that know nothing about it, and help to understand a lot of the undertone of the conversation in this thread.

[Bird]

The contract is not so informative without all the posts that accompany it. Those other posts explain and expand on it. You wouldn't get much from just the contract IMO. I read through a bunch of the archives and there are still probably many many posts I missed so I only have bits and pieces of the story myself.

 

Why not just join comicart-l and see it for yourself? That is probably the best way to get the info. cutting and pasting all the posts would be unwieldy if not impossible.

[romitaman]

I was told I should read this thread about the questions glen askedme to write for his blog..andi never this old CONTRACT stuff was actuallythemain topic!!!

 

ok i'm gonna do something really crazy and explain..THE CONTRACT story.... only because I want to show everyone here that 2 people can be very upset about a deal gone bad......and still be civil enough to work it all out in the long run where both people benefited.

 

I'm a pretty open guy and I here the ramblings about what I own......and I try to never take it personal when someone talks about me having too much Spiderman art and I should sell it and share the wealth stuff.

 

I do practice that philosophy to some extent as I am a staunch , and I follow politics closely. I am helping out with the local and national President Obama campaign's so I do believe in helping others)

 

But back to the art story form 1999.....i've learned that in life.... you can never be EVERYONE'S friend...someone out this is always gonna feel you are too good or have too much and then sling mud at you.

 

I think I heard a great saying a few years ago which read something like this:

 

SHOW ME A MAN WHO HAS NO ENEMIES AND I WILL SHOW YOU A MAN WHO HAS NEVER LEARNED SUCCESS!"

 

But to be a good sport I will be happy to give everyone a quick run down of what happened as I remember it... and I could be wrong on some instances so I hope no one picks me apart for this but oh well.....

 

ok so here goes.....

 

glen had just bought the ASM 115 john Romita cover. we had become pretty good friends over the previous 1-2 years we had been doing art deals.......

 

Glen asked me if I would sell him the complete ASM 115 interior book so he could have the ENTIRE book for his collection..I told him it was not for sale or trade as it meant a lot to me as I had already sold and traded glen some of my key ASM covers (ASM 68 and 71) for interior ASM art over the previous year and every deal went well and we had a pretty good friendship.

 

glen called me again and asked me if he can loan me 8000 dollars for 1 year, and in return, I give him the art to enjoy for 1 year....and so long as I return the 8000 dollars in 1 year, I get the art back.

 

I said it was a very odd request..... but I figured, what the heck.....ok I'll do it.

 

I told a good friend of mine who was lawyer who collects comic art, and he said I should have a contract made up in case something happened to glen or to the art In the course of that 1 year.

 

(Glen does live in California with earth quakes and the threat of that state falling into the ocean and all...)

 

anyway.... my lawyer friend said I should put a penalty clause in the contract in case something bad happened to the art....(fire theft, act of god ...earthquake and so on, if the art were destroyed)

 

and again, this was all a formality to me... I didn't think much of it other than having documentation of what we were doing.

 

So my lawyer put in a penalty clause of 8000 dollars extra glen would owe me if something happened to the art that he could not send it back to me.... I told glen on the phone I really didn't want to do any of this, I even offered to make him perfect laser color copies at kinkos but he said he really wanted to look at the actual art......I said fine...... and I told glen I'd never sell the story for 16k per he penalty clause even as the story was very personal to me, but if it still meant that much to him to have the art to see with the cover for 1 year..its fine with me.

 

and for me I get 8000 dollars to play with for a year with no interest so its all fine to me also to do this for him.

 

throughout the year glen asks me several times if he can just buy the art....I say no and that he will get his 8000 back early so there are no problems.....

 

I sent glen his bank checks for 8000 dollars back a month early so there were no problems..... and glen called me up and said he was enacting the penalty clause of the contract and he was sending me 8000 dollars and he was keeping the ASM 115 book.

 

and I cannot deny.... I really did despise glen for a good long while (that was putting it mildly) as I felt he backstabbed me.... when I went out of my way doing him a favor I didn't have to do.... But glen felt he had a right to do what he did and so be it.....

 

but instead of holding a grudge for a long time which doesn't help anything or anyone.....I asked glen to simply not split up the book until we tried to work something out,..and glen agreed...... about 7 years later in San Diego at the ComiCon, I finally got a high end piece of art (ASM 12 splash) which oddly enough is in the very next heritage auction as its showcase piece, anyway....I traded the ASM 12p1 for 2 other high end pieces of art...and glen loved those 2 pieces of art I got, and we did a very fair trade and I got the ASM 115 story back.

 

Again...... life is too short to have bad feelings all the time inside of you I feel and glen feels......and glen didn't split up the book as he very well could have back then, and I was thankful for that and we made up and we both got the art we ultimately wanted.....

 

again..... we completely made up that day and i'm glad we did as glen and I have done dozens of deals since that where we both got artwork for our personal collections, and glen actually helped me get the next to final page I needed to COMPLETE the ASM 46 book and that means a lotto to me also!

 

I shared this on here ONLY to show that 2 people can have a major disagreement...and still make up and become very good friends again out of it all.......

 

I haven't even thought of this episode in YEARS....... and hopefully this can put to rest all of the contract stuff, as it all worked out for both glen and Myself in the long run and we both let bygones be bygones.

 

and YES..I STILL own the complete book to ASM 115 book...(which I bought from Mitch Itkowitz in 1990 for 800 dollars!)

 

what a great hobby we have here ..right? )

 

Mike

[JS]

wow. mike - i emailed with you a while back and ultimately bought a few of my first pieces of OA with you - im pretty new to collecting but i immediately could tell you are one of the good guys.

 

what a jerk this other guy is. what a real jerk. of course this is only 1 side of the story, but i can completely believe it.

 

sometimes people just suck. ive learned this lesson early on - never mix money with friends if its more than a few hundred bucks..never lend anything you arent willing to never see again....

 

if it were me, i would have been thrilled with the laser copies. my thoughts are - he never intended on returning the art - he was just going to take it right from the beginning.

 

i have a lot more to say on the issue but i wont because it wouldnt be right...im sure others feel the same way..

 

what a story.

[glenbru]

Well, I did not intend to discuss this again since this event was many years ago but I feel I should add my POV at this point.

 

Mike and I are good friends again and I thought bringing this up again might bring up bad feelings which I do not want.

 

It is true that this began as a loan for a year for the sum of 9000. But Mike's attorney got involved and changed the terms of the contract to a sale for one year with an added penalty clause that if I failed to return the art to Mike in one year I would owe Mike a total of 18k.

 

At the time the story was considered to be worth 10k. I had offered Mike 12k to buy the story but he refused. I had never offered more than that.

 

Over the course of the year while I had the story in my posscession the Romita market heated up and the value of the story more than doubled. It was now a bargain at 18k. I decided to enact the penalty clause because I felt Mike had put that as a price on the art. If he had wanted to put a penalty to insure that I would return the art why not make it 100k or some number that would have been insane to pay. I felt that he had put this price of 18k into our contract and was now upset because the art was worth closer to 25k.

 

Mike's contention was it was more about the art and a loan. My contention was that we had a contract that I decided to exercise to its legal extent.

 

Mike looked at this more as a betrayal of our friendship. I looked at this more as a business situation.

 

Looking back on this years later I do have to commend Mike for his forgiving nature after feeling like I had betrayed him. Mike had some really bad advice from his attorney but I did think at the

time that Mike's intent was to set a price on the art in our contract which I felt justified in exercising.

 

I'm glad we've been able to get past the bad feelings and get to a place where both feel like friends again and that we've both done each other favors many times over in the hundreds of deals we've done since.

 

Glen

[JS]

Glen even if the amount of the penalty was $1 the INTENT was that it was for a penalty and a SAFETY NET IN CASE OF..., NOT A CONTRACT TO BUY THE ART!!!

 

You KNEW he wanted it back - you should have NEVER elected to buy. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

 

[glenbru]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

[JS]

I didn't see the contract - I admitted earlier that I was new to this conversation, and that before you chimed in it was only one side to the story...

 

Even if the wording was phrased as a contract for sale - you knew the intent that Mike did not want to sell to you but rather just lend you the stuff for the year - you shouldn't have sought to enforce..

 

I'm a lawyer, and personally I think Mike would have been able to get his stuff back if he sued, even if it was a contract for sale...which is a form draft that I am sure Mike's lawyer used without much thought because he knew Mike's intent...but outside of courts - this is one of those - Glen you should have done the right thing kind of moments.

 

Jerry

[glenbru]

Jerry, it feels a little silly to be scolded by you for something that happened 13 years ago regardless of how you feel about it. My advice to anyone who wants to read the entire story as it transpired is to Join the comicart-l and read the whole thing. The actual contract is there as well. This way at least you can see the story in context. 13 years later, memories are different and this is something that is very much in the past for me. And I think since Mike and I have mended our relationship that that should be the final word.

 

If you consider yourself a comic art collector you should join comicart-l anyway just to be a part of that community. So if this piece of gossip between me and Mike is your your incentive to join, so be it.

[JS]

Whatever man -- I don't know you - I was just passing by -- you're an adult and are capable of your own reflections on your past decisions..you just have to live with yourself..

 

Anyone else ever tell you that you have a bit of an attitude though? No reason to be snippy...

 

With that said, I'm going to play golf, enjoy your Saturdays everyone.

[PrechterFool-migration]

And people wonder why some choose to be anonymous

 

Glen....you da man in my book !!

 

Ur "version" of this contract incident rings true to me

 

Loan a book for a year Who does that

 

And with an attorney to draft the "Sales contract" to boot

 

I believe ya BUDDY

 

 

[comix4fun]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

Liquidated damages clause ?

[comix4fun]

Well, I did not intend to discuss this again since this event was many years ago but I feel I should add my POV at this point.

 

Mike and I are good friends again and I thought bringing this up again might bring up bad feelings which I do not want.

 

It is true that this began as a loan for a year for the sum of 9000. But Mike's attorney got involved and changed the terms of the contract to a sale for one year with an added penalty clause that if I failed to return the art to Mike in one year I would owe Mike a total of 18k.

 

At the time the story was considered to be worth 10k. I had offered Mike 12k to buy the story but he refused. I had never offered more than that.

 

Over the course of the year while I had the story in my posscession the Romita market heated up and the value of the story more than doubled. It was now a bargain at 18k. I decided to enact the penalty clause because I felt Mike had put that as a price on the art. If he had wanted to put a penalty to insure that I would return the art why not make it 100k or some number that would have been insane to pay. I felt that he had put this price of 18k into our contract and was now upset because the art was worth closer to 25k.

 

Mike's contention was it was more about the art and a loan. My contention was that we had a contract that I decided to exercise to its legal extent.

 

Mike looked at this more as a betrayal of our friendship. I looked at this more as a business situation.

 

Looking back on this years later I do have to commend Mike for his forgiving nature after feeling like I had betrayed him. Mike had some really bad advice from his attorney but I did think at the

time that Mike's intent was to set a price on the art in our contract which I felt justified in exercising.

 

I'm glad we've been able to get past the bad feelings and get to a place where both feel like friends again and that we've both done each other favors many times over in the hundreds of deals we've done since.

 

Glen

 

Three things strike me:

 

1) You have a very "interesting" way of interpreting thing.

 

2) If, at the time of the entire contract, you considered Mike your "friend" then you and I have very different definitions of the word.

 

3) To answer your question "why not make it $100k penalty?", penalties are not allowed or enforceable under contract law, regardless of who seeks to trigger them and to what end.

 

[comix4fun]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

Liquidated damages clause ?

 

 

It's called a penalty. It was triggered as a penalty. If it's liquidated damages it needs to be defined and explained as such. Calling it a penalty, outright, makes it something I would not want to defend in a suit for contract enforcement.

[comix4fun]

 

Loan a book for a year Who does that

 

 

 

Wasn't that Glenn's idea? To ask for the loan? After Mike refused to sell the book outright, several times?

[PrechterFool-migration]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

Liquidated damages clause ?

 

 

It's called a penalty. It was triggered as a penalty. If it's liquidated damages it needs to be defined and explained as such. Calling it a penalty, outright, makes it something I would not want to defend in a suit for contract enforcement.

 

I didn't look at the contract

 

If its a "liquidated damages" clause then the contract stands

[comix4fun]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

Liquidated damages clause ?

 

 

It's called a penalty. It was triggered as a penalty. If it's liquidated damages it needs to be defined and explained as such. Calling it a penalty, outright, makes it something I would not want to defend in a suit for contract enforcement.

 

I didn't look at the contract

 

If its a "liquidated damages" clause then the contract stands

 

 

 

Those two sentences are funny next to each other.

I really want to read things fully before making blanket statements about whether they "stand" or "fall"...there's so much more that could be wrong.

 

 

Oh and here's the term:

 

If I violate this agreement between us and attempt to sell the art prior to

one year or I refuse to sell the artwork back to you at the end of exact one

year then I will incur a 100% penalty of an additional $9000 dollars which I

would then owe to you.

 

 

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

Have you seen the contract, Jerry? It's a contract for a sale.

 

 

 

 

Penalties are not allowed under contract law which, as a material component of the overall deal, would invalidate the agreement.

 

 

Liquidated damages clause ?

 

 

It's called a penalty. It was triggered as a penalty. If it's liquidated damages it needs to be defined and explained as such. Calling it a penalty, outright, makes it something I would not want to defend in a suit for contract enforcement.

 

I didn't look at the contract

 

If its a "liquidated damages" clause then the contract stands

 

 

 

Those two sentences are funny next to each other.

I really want to read things fully before making blanket statements about whether they "stand" or "Fall"

 

 

Oh and here's the term:

 

If I violate this agreement between us and attempt to sell the art prior to

one year or I refuse to sell the artwork back to you at the end of exact one

year then I will incur a 100% penalty of an additional $9000 dollars which I

would then owe to you.

 

 

 

Well it behooves common sense

 

You can call a "loan" a "loan" but it still smells like an "option"

 

People breach contracts all the time and suffer the consequences

 

If Mike had an attorney that drafted this contract then I have to believe both parties foresaw the possibilities that the art would remain in Glens possession

 

Forget the "friend" stuff

 

That's a red herring

 

Children need to grow up

 

If Mike wanted to bring a cause of action for replevin then it would be interesting to see how the cookie crumbled

 

But as far as I am concerned . . . Glen did nothing wrong