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

[comix4fun]

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

 

Interesting that someone who just mentioned that they never read the contract would speak with such certainty.

 

The intent of the parties is NEVER a red herring. It's the key component of contract. Gaining confidence, getting close, getting pushed back, finding an alternate route, taking what you want, then dropping the civility.

 

The facts, details, negotiations, and the overall intent of the parties is key to determining if there was a meeting of the minds as to what was intended by each of them.

 

The red herring is seeing that this is a clear penalty, defined as that by the parties, and trying to call it something else. Common sense indeed.

 

Glenn tried to buy it, couldn't buy it. Glenn asked for the "loan" and got it. He admits as such. That's not in controversy. All that back story is key to determining what really happened here.

 

Children need to grow up

 

 

They do. They need to stop going to any lengths possible to get some material possession that they want at any and all costs regardless of relationships, intent, and civility.

 

I know a lot of grown ups. Can you guess which side they come down on?

 

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

 

 

I would have loved to see that as well. Given the amount of discussion leading up to the final deal, the timing of everyone's actions, the way some people are justifying what went down might not stand up to the bright light of day.

 

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

 

 

Good for you. It's always interesting to see divergent opinions on friendship, civility and how far people will go to get something from someone who doesn't want to give it up. I am sure Glenn appreciates having someone (although someone who never read the agreement, doesn't know all the details and is accepting accounts at face value) on his side.

 

Everyone needs "friends".

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

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

 

Interesting that someone who just mentioned that they never read the contract would speak with such certainty.

 

The intent of the parties is NEVER a red herring. It's the key component of contract. Gaining confidence, getting close, getting pushed back, finding an alternate route, taking what you want, then dropping the civility.

 

The facts, details, negotiations, and the overall intent of the parties is key to determining if there was a meeting of the minds as to what was intended by each of them.

 

The red herring is seeing that this is a clear penalty, defined as that by the parties, and trying to call it something else. Common sense indeed.

 

Glenn tried to buy it, couldn't buy it. Glenn asked for the "loan" and got it. He admits as such. That's not in controversy. All that back story is key to determining what really happened here.

 

Children need to grow up

 

 

They do. They need to stop going to any lengths possible to get some material possession that they want at any and all costs regardless of relationships, intent, and civility.

 

I know a lot of grown ups. Can you guess which side they come down on?

 

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

 

 

I would have loved to see that as well. Given the amount of discussion leading up to the final deal, the timing of everyone's actions, the way some people are justifying what went down might not stand up to the bright light of day.

 

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

 

 

Good for you. It's always interesting to see divergent opinions on friendship, civility and how far people will go to get something from someone who doesn't want to give it up. I am sure Glenn appreciates having someone (although someone who never read the agreement, doesn't know all the details and is accepting accounts at face value) on his side.

 

Everyone needs "friends".

 

First - The "friendship" and the "civility" stuff is a RED HERRING

 

Second - Both Mike and Glen are sophisticated parties. Mike even had an attorney draft the contract

 

Third - The intent of the parties is merely ACADEMIC. It is an argument drafted into the brief, I get it. I have been in court enough times to know that WARs are won or lost by attrition. And judges many times do not follow the law anyway. Its a sad fact but it is true.

 

Fourth - Glen makes a valid point about that the "penalty" (or whatever it was) could have been negotiated as a higher number but $18,000 was FMV and that prices on Romita art subsequently appreciated and that is why Mike was so upset. Both parties foresaw the eventuality of a breach of a condition and could have negotiated a higher "penalty" price. And that Mike didnt think about the "penalty" number because they were "friends" just does not ring true to me. Again - mike is not a dummy. I have negotiated with him. He is VERY sophisticated.

 

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

Fifth - The contract was structured as a SALES CONTRACT. Not a LOAN securitized by the art !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bird]

Hey everyone, this is just a rehash of something 13 years old. Let these guys rest and let the matter rest. This is just like reading the archives, these points have been made and made again years ago. I get that it is an academic argument but there are real people here who have made there peace, let's respect that. Why continue to poke the hornets nest? You can see the posts and make your determinations but why dredge this all up again? The point is moot. No agreement can be reached now.

[Doc Joe]

As a lay person when you hear that you asked to borrow the piece for a year and would give it back, then you should give it back.

 

If you tell that story to your Grandma and ask her what happens next. The answer would be they return the art at the end of the year and get the money back.

 

When you need fancy law to explain it, it smells.

 

Obviously things have moved on between them but, call me naive, I must admit I am shocked. As ever our actions and words define us and our character. Nuff said.

 

Still as others have said this is old news and people move on, I'm not the same person I was 13 years ago.

[PrechterFool-migration]

As a lay person when you hear that you asked to borrow the piece for a year and would give it back, then you should give it back.

 

If you tell that story to your Grandma and ask her what happens next. The answer would be they return the art at the end of the year and get the money back.

 

When you need fancy law to explain it, it smells.

 

Obviously things have moved on between them but, call me naive, I must admit I am shocked. As ever our actions and words define us and our character. Nuff said.

 

This will be my last post on this matter as Mike and Glen have overcome this issue so I don't want to continue to stir the pot

 

I think why people find this story so fascinating is that it has all the elements of a good story - 1)Friendship 2) Lawyers 3) Contracts 4) Business and 5) Passion

 

I personally do find it significant that they had a WRITTEN contract. And a "Purchase Agreement", not a "Promissory Note".

 

I think the oral "intentions" and friendship and civility is obfuscation

 

But that said, I see Mikes side.

 

I just ultimately back Glen.

 

And I wanted to make sure his position had a voice

 

I am now done on this matter

 

[JS]

+1 Doc Joe. The only disagreement with your statement I have is that even as a lawyer I still do the right thing --

 

I can tell you that in my experience I know which guys would hurt me if I didn't keep on my wits and which I can trust over a handshake or a phone call...and most I can size up within a 5 minute conversation in the beginning..

 

Some guys are good guys and some...well...have fallen to the dark side, as Yoda would say.

 

Edit - my advice to people like Glen is to read a bit of philosophy..Morality reigns supreme over the law!

[Nexus]

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.

 

I've gotten a ton of PMs on this so I might as well answer you all at once.

 

There are several threads re: "The Contract" in the comicart-l archives numbering over 100 posts. As you can imagine, a lot of collectors weighed in. I narrowed it down to five key posts: three from Mike B (including the actual contract) and two from Glen B. All you need to know is in their respective accounts (which, not surprisingly, is not exactly the same as their recollections 13 years later).

 

I'm sorry to tell you that I'm not planning to post them anymore.

 

I've gotten a long series of e-mails since this topic began from Glen B strongly asking me not to post them. I found it curious because I think the posts are the fairest way to present both their sides. However, Glen B's position is that although he still stands by his actions of 13 years ago (which he had termed "honorable", "moral", and "right"), he doesn't want the public to know.

 

I've thought about it for a couple of days. As he feels that strongly about it and has written me directly, I've decided not to post them. I think the posts speak for themselves and he's better off with people reading the original posts than guessing what happened, but that's his choice.

 

For anyone who really wants to read them, go to the comicart-l archives and start with the post that Ruben references. It's Mike B's first post and starts the thread.

 

 

[glenbru]

Hi Felix,

 

First off I think people should read the comicart-l not some cut and paste that has been editted by someone--even if you think the original posts would do me some good. This was 13 years ago and I'm sure I'm not rembering it exactly as it happened.

 

I did ask you not to cut and paste for two reasons which I made clear to you. First, I told you that I didn't want to reopen an arguement with Mike. I explained to you that sometimes when you are going over an old disagreement with someone that your old points of view tend to rear their heads and you find yourself back in an arguement again. I explained to you that Mike and I are fine with things now and wanted to leave it at that.

 

Second, I told you that I'm trying to do some good for the hobby with my blog and that I was concerned that this kind of chatter, albeit 13 years old, might hurt my chances to get other people to do interviews. That I didn't want the distraction from the work that I'm trying to do to get information to the comic art community.

 

That's all there was to it--as I explained.

 

Glen

[mtlevy]

I believe we can all agree to end the thread?

 

 

[Pete Marino]

Based on how this thread has gone, I'd say the only thing everyone can agree upon is that the thread exists... and I may even be wrong about that.

[PrechterFool-migration]

Based on how this thread has gone, I'd say the only thing everyone can agree upon is that the thread exists... and I may even be wrong about that.

 

Cogito Ergo Sum

[comix4fun]

Fifth - The contract was structured as a SALES CONTRACT. Not a LOAN securitized by the art !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I didn't want you to think I left you hanging.

 

I had a longer reply ready to go before my internet connection went out earlier.

 

Then I realized that parsing legal hairs is not the same thing as what is right and what is wrong. So what's legally possible, legally permissible and technically allowed is really a moot point. That's not what people are reacting to.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior between friends. If I choose to treat people differently, well that just reflects on how we live our lives.

 

Personally, in a business setting, knowing the intent of the party I am dealing with, them making their desires crystal clear to me from the outset, I can't imagine a situation where I could do something similar when it was so clearly against their intent and their will. To do it to a "friend"? Unconscionable. For me, personal gain isn't the only factor that enters into my decision making.

 

I can't imagine living my life, explaining how I treat other people with "well, it's technically legal."

 

[PrechterFool-migration]

Fifth - The contract was structured as a SALES CONTRACT. Not a LOAN securitized by the art !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I didn't want you to think I left you hanging.

 

I had a longer reply ready to go before my internet connection went out earlier.

 

Then I realized that parsing legal hairs is not the same thing as what is right and what is wrong. So what's legally possible, legally permissible and technically allowed is really a moot point. That's not what people are reacting to.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior between friends. If I choose to treat people differently, well that just reflects on how we live our lives.

 

Personally, in a business setting, knowing the intent of the party I am dealing with, them making their desires crystal clear to me from the outset, I can't imagine a situation where I could do something similar when it was so clearly against their intent and their will. To do it to a "friend"? Unconscionable. For me, personal gain isn't the only factor that enters into my decision making.

 

I can't imagine living my life, explaining how I treat other people with "well, it's technically legal."

 

I agree with EVERYTHING you just wrote

 

I guess I simply have doubts as to the initial understanding of the deal between the parties. Like I said - Mike Burkey is no dummy

 

Anyways - lets drop this thread for the sake of Glen & Mike

 

Best

 

Prechter

[JS]

Anyone wanna lend me 5 grand - You can have limited edition poster Fallout 3 I got from NYCC a few years back. But I definitely want it back.

 

But just in case you mess it up, you have to give me another 5 grand. Or taco bell.

 

In the event the taco bell is not hot - you forfeit your rights to the poster, must immediately turn it over to me, unless you decide to elect the "better burrito" clause,

 

in which, you must bring me, within 2 business days, a better burrito than a taco bell supreme, and it must be hot.

 

PM me if interested.

[Doc Joe]

Anyone wanna lend me 5 grand - You can have limited edition poster Fallout 3 I got from NYCC a few years back. But I definitely want it back.

 

But just in case you mess it up, you have to give me another 5 grand. Or taco bell.

 

In the event the taco bell is not hot - you forfeit your rights to the poster, must immediately turn it over to me, unless you decide to elect the "better burrito" clause,

 

in which, you must bring me, within 2 business days, a better burrito than a taco bell supreme, and it must be hot.

 

PM me if interested.

 

before I PM, do you mean hot warm or hot spicy?

 

[JS]

Thats it. I thought my intentions were clear. I can't believe this Doc - we were friends. I elect the "spoon is bananas" clause.

 

Everybody dance now.

[VintageComics]

Fifth - The contract was structured as a SALES CONTRACT. Not a LOAN securitized by the art !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I didn't want you to think I left you hanging.

 

I had a longer reply ready to go before my internet connection went out earlier.

 

Then I realized that parsing legal hairs is not the same thing as what is right and what is wrong. So what's legally possible, legally permissible and technically allowed is really a moot point. That's not what people are reacting to.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior between friends. If I choose to treat people differently, well that just reflects on how we live our lives.

 

Personally, in a business setting, knowing the intent of the party I am dealing with, them making their desires crystal clear to me from the outset, I can't imagine a situation where I could do something similar when it was so clearly against their intent and their will. To do it to a "friend"? Unconscionable. For me, personal gain isn't the only factor that enters into my decision making.

 

I can't imagine living my life, explaining how I treat other people with "well, it's technically legal."

 

I agree completely. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I will choose the spirit of the law if it ever comes down to it. Hiding behind the letter of the law is not always the "right" thing.

 

Having said that I'm a big believer in moving on and forgiving but every experience is a learning experience and we modify our behaviour based on those experience and decide who we deal with and how we deal with them moving forward, even if we forgive them.

 

 

[Terry Doyle]

Fifth - The contract was structured as a SALES CONTRACT. Not a LOAN securitized by the art !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I didn't want you to think I left you hanging.

 

I had a longer reply ready to go before my internet connection went out earlier.

 

Then I realized that parsing legal hairs is not the same thing as what is right and what is wrong. So what's legally possible, legally permissible and technically allowed is really a moot point. That's not what people are reacting to.

 

You are entitled to your opinion on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior between friends. If I choose to treat people differently, well that just reflects on how we live our lives.

 

Personally, in a business setting, knowing the intent of the party I am dealing with, them making their desires crystal clear to me from the outset, I can't imagine a situation where I could do something similar when it was so clearly against their intent and their will. To do it to a "friend"? Unconscionable. For me, personal gain isn't the only factor that enters into my decision making.

 

I can't imagine living my life, explaining how I treat other people with "well, it's technically legal."

 

I agree completely. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I will choose the spirit of the law if it ever comes down to it. Hiding behind the letter of the law is not always the "right" thing.

 

Having said that I'm a big believer in moving on and forgiving but every experience is a learning experience and we modify our behaviour based on those experience and decide who we deal with and how we deal with them moving forward, even if we forgive them.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

Thumbs up . . . not to be confused with what my avatar might suggest, eh?

[NelsonAI]

Here's the recap:

 

 

I knew it was you Fredo and it broke my heart ......

 

 

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer ......

 

 

Ooops - sorry, I was watching the Godfather trilogy on AMC and went off topic ....