Mound City Auctions

[conditionfreak]

In Ohio, if you are under the influence of alcohol beyond the legal limit. Or under the influence of illegal drugs. You are guilty of DUI, sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Regardless of whether or not the key is in the ignition or the car is running. Because you are in "control" of the vehicle.

 

Presumably because you could be, in a moment, operating the vehicle.

 

The difference being "operating" and "in control" They are two different things.

 

I do not know anything about Floridas laws, but I am guessing they are very similar. Since half of Ohio lives in Florida, half of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(only slightly exagerating)

 

 

 

As a side note. I have seen people arrested for DUI, while operating a bicycle, an Amish Buggy, a horse, and a lawn mower. No skateboarders or roller/ice skaters yet

[sufunk]

In Ohio, if you are under the influence of alcohol beyond the legal limit. Or under the influence of illegal drugs. You are guilty of DUI, sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Regardless of whether or not the key is in the ignition or the car is running. Because you are in "control" of the vehicle.

 

Presumably because you could be, in a moment, operating the vehicle.

 

The difference being "operating" and "in control" They are two different things.

 

I do not know anything about Floridas laws, but I am guessing they are very similar. Since half of Ohio lives in Florida, half of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(only slightly exagerating)

 

 

 

As a side note. I have seen people arrested for DUI, while operating a bicycle, an Amish Buggy, a horse, and a lawn mower. No skateboarders or roller/ice skaters yet

 

Absolute worst case i ever had was a DUI on a lawnmower where the Defendant demanded to be his own counsel. The Judge did me the huge favor of appointing me "shadow counsel" which basically just means i get to hold his hand and give him advice but dont get to do anything and he doesnt have to take my advice. That was a FUN 3 days!

 

Oh, and even though i wasnt his attorney, he filed a bar complaint against me after he was convicted for not advising him that he didnt have to take the stand. This was despite there being a 50 page transcript of me BEGGING him for 2 hours not to take the stand during a hearing on the matter

[joeypost]

In Ohio, if you are under the influence of alcohol beyond the legal limit. Or under the influence of illegal drugs. You are guilty of DUI, sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Regardless of whether or not the key is in the ignition or the car is running. Because you are in "control" of the vehicle.

 

Presumably because you could be, in a moment, operating the vehicle.

 

The difference being "operating" and "in control" They are two different things.

 

I do not know anything about Floridas laws, but I am guessing they are very similar. Since half of Ohio lives in Florida, half of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(only slightly exagerating)

 

 

 

As a side note. I have seen people arrested for DUI, while operating a bicycle, an Amish Buggy, a horse, and a lawn mower. No skateboarders or roller/ice skaters yet

 

Absolute worst case i ever had was a DUI on a lawnmower where the Defendant demanded to be his own counsel. The Judge did me the huge favor of appointing me "shadow counsel" which basically just means i get to hold his hand and give him advice but dont get to do anything and he doesnt have to take my advice. That was a FUN 3 days!

 

Oh, and even though i wasnt his attorney, he filed a bar complaint against me after he was convicted for not advising him that he didnt have to take the stand. This was despite there being a 50 page transcript of me BEGGING him for 2 hours not to take the stand during a hearing on the matter

 

You know what they say about good deeds.

[Comicopolis]

So I think I have it figured out.

 

The wifes bid can be withdrawn as per prior agreement

bluechip could have withdrawn his bid as well but either didn't because he couldn't do it using the online system.

MCA asks consigner if he will reduce the reserve to the bid put in by bluechip (after wife withdrew the last bid)

MCA says he could have withdrawn his bid but then backs out and says he couldn't have. (according to bluechip)

MCA stands by the law that once an auction is closed you can't back out.

 

MCA then forces bluechip to honor the auction by holding prior payments and not distributing books paid for from previous orders.

 

So my question for MCA is: Did bluechip have the opportunity to withdraw his bid? Was he notified of that option and did the online capacity allow him operationally to do so?

 

Did MCA hold back bluechips paid for comics to force this resolution? Will bluechip provide any copied emails that show MCA did that?

 

If I were MCA, regardless of the law and regardless of the likely insults/heated argument thrown back and forth, I would make this right by simply offering to purchase the MC 1 for the asking price. Likely MCA would get 90% of the $$$ back anyway and its an easy public relations fix.

 

I think MCA junior said that he can't please everybody. I'm not sure there is a single defender of what happened here. Maybe Vintage Comics but he seems to be enjoying the philosophical debate of ethics.

 

 

Some important questions here that need answering.

 

Unless all the married men on the boards are too busy looking at pictures of women that are not their wives.

[sufunk]

That after them you end up with a Bar complaint and a 8.5 Avengers 4?

[Mike's Rack]

In Ohio, if you are under the influence of alcohol beyond the legal limit. Or under the influence of illegal drugs. You are guilty of DUI, sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. Regardless of whether or not the key is in the ignition or the car is running. Because you are in "control" of the vehicle.

 

Presumably because you could be, in a moment, operating the vehicle.

 

The difference being "operating" and "in control" They are two different things.

 

I do not know anything about Floridas laws, but I am guessing they are very similar. Since half of Ohio lives in Florida, half of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(only slightly exagerating)

 

 

 

As a side note. I have seen people arrested for DUI, while operating a bicycle, an Amish Buggy, a horse, and a lawn mower. No skateboarders or roller/ice skaters yet

Well, we might as well really derail this thread. I had an officer storm out of my office because I declined prosecution for DUI on a case where a guy was driving a motorized wheelchair down the middle of the road and collided with a car. For the record - it was not his wheelchair, he was perfectly healthy as evidenced by his sprint from the scene. He was apprehended nearby whizzing in the bushes.

 

Oh, and bidding up your own items and withdrawing the bids is complete bull mess.

[Soloist]

The bidding reached by the crowd (whether in person or online) did not come close to the number needed for that book to sell. So the bidding was advanced to determine the highest bid the public would go to - the fair market value for the item.

 

Someone please help me wrap my head around this.

 

If the auction is properly marketed to the correct people who would be interested, shouldn't the FMV be determined by those who are actually interested in purchasing the item?

 

 

 

 

Without us bidding the reserve, the comic would have never reached the bid it did, and the seller would in no way have accepted the lower bid for the book.

 

 

So doesn't that immediately scream out that the reserve is too high? I dunno, it doesn't seem right to drop it on someone after the fact.

 

 

 

[1koko]

Well I have to say I find it hilarious to see bluechip complaing about shill bidding.......

 

...and then find myself in agreement with him about Mound City's bidding process.

 

If I had a limited amount of dollars to spend at an auction and have no idea whether I have won an item or not due to higher bids being withdrawn wthout my knowledge, I won't bid.

 

This thead has confirmed why my meagre dollars won"t be spent with Mound City

 

 

 

 

[Mark 1]

And the pool of good places to buy continues to dwindle...

[bluechip]

So I think I have it figured out.

 

The wifes bid can be withdrawn as per prior agreement

bluechip could have withdrawn his bid as well but either didn't because he couldn't do it using the online system.

MCA asks consigner if he will reduce the reserve to the bid put in by bluechip (after wife withdrew the last bid)

MCA says he could have withdrawn his bid but then backs out and says he couldn't have. (according to bluechip)

MCA stands by the law that once an auction is closed you can't back out.

 

MCA then forces bluechip to honor the auction by holding prior payments and not distributing books paid for from previous orders.

 

So my question for MCA is: Did bluechip have the opportunity to withdraw his bid? Was he notified of that option and did the online capacity allow him operationally to do so?

 

Did MCA hold back bluechips paid for comics to force this resolution? Will bluechip provide any copied emails that show MCA did that?

 

If I were MCA, regardless of the law and regardless of the likely insults/heated argument thrown back and forth, I would make this right by simply offering to purchase the MC 1 for the asking price. Likely MCA would get 90% of the $$$ back anyway and its an easy public relations fix.

 

I think MCA junior said that he can't please everybody. I'm not sure there is a single defender of what happened here. Maybe Vintage Comics but he seems to be enjoying the philosophical debate of ethics.

 

 

Some important questions here that need answering.

 

Unless all the married men on the boards are too busy looking at pictures of women that are not their wives.

 

I don't know where the OP questions are, but the answers to the comments/questions are:

 

I was told the seller could withdraw their bid and that I could have also withdrawn my bid online. I checked to see if there were any way possible and found none. Then I was told I could have done it on the phone (and these assertions were made quite vehemently, and with insults).

 

I have the emails, but I am unsure of all the legal ramifications of publishing them since emails are supposed to be private and contain info not pertinent to the question at hand. I have been considering this issue in regard to an unresolved issue, on a different matter. And I am told it's not necessarily a good idea to publish emails; better to quote only the pertinent portions. So there's no question of publicizing problematic things unnecessarily.

 

In this instance, for example, Mound City published my email, in which I said I had bid "too high." I could interpret that as injurious, since there's reason to believe a potential seller might have seen that here and might not pay me what I paid for it. That information It isn't pertinent to the complaint or to any of mound city's legitimate needs in responding, so it shouldn't have been shared, in part because it's clear the seller operated from "reserve remorse" or "bidder's remorse" in that he made a bid and then withdrew it.

 

As to the question of what's proper or legal bidding, some say it's improper to bid at all, even 10% of value, if you are the seller or a colleague of the seller's. Others say it crosses the lines when the bidder intends or doesn't intend to buy, and isn't held accountable if he "wins"

 

Without disrespecting anybody's opinion on the matter, and without saying in any way that it's illegal, it's simply unquestionable that in this case the seller bid without the intent to buy. That is obvious from the fact that he made the high bid, and didn't buy it.

 

I have said from the outset I didn't consider it wrong or actionable that the seller was bidding on his own item. And I didn't consider it wrong or actionable that he had someone else bid for him. What made it wrong, if not necessarily actionable, was that he bid without the intent to buy. If he or his proxy had bid against me and ended up honoring his bid for his own item, I would have had no problem with it. The seller would have rolled the dice trying to get more for the book, and lost. But he didn't lose because the house let him take back his dice (and his bid)

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Wow! What a thread!

 

MCA appears to have departed the thread, so we may never get an answer to Dr. Love's question: The auction authority MCA relies on indicates that once a high bid has been accepted, the lower bids are no longer active. Hence, if the high bidder retracts, the next highest bid does not become the new high bid. Is this statement inconsistent with MO law or with MCA's own auction terms?

 

Although MCA states that their comic auctions are now online only, I didn't see a statement as to whether they continue to bid on their own auctions on behalf of sellers.

 

Leaving aside the particulars of this case, I found VC's comments that the owner of a firm cannot be held to have behaved unethically if the actions of the firm were within the law to be surprising. This seems equivalent to saying that any actions taken by a firm that are not illegal must be considered ethical. But perhaps I misunderstood him.

[Bomber-Bob]

Having some participation in the original Mound City comic auction of a few years ago and now reading this thread I would like to say the following. I think the Mound City Auction folks are basically good, honest people but it seems, for whatever reason, they stir up a lot of drama.

[MatterEaterLad]

Now that I know the rules going in I'd definitely be wary, especially of big ticket items. And if the auctioneer states that there is someone bidding the reserve, I would play accordingly.

 

That being said...I hit their auction and bought a bunch of cheap Silver Age stuff last night.

 

[VintageComics]

Leaving aside the particulars of this case, I found VC's comments that the owner of a firm cannot be held to have behaved unethically if the actions of the firm were within the law to be surprising. This seems equivalent to saying that any actions taken by a firm that are not illegal must be considered ethical. But perhaps I misunderstood him.

 

Keep in mind that I'm neither a lawyer or a philosopher by trade. I'm a comic dealer.

 

My understanding is that there is the law, there is ethics (upon which laws are based) and there is morality - which is personal. They they are 3 separate things.

 

Putting aside the matter of MCA, the gist of what I wrote was that discussing the legality of a business and the morality of a person are two distinctly separate things.

 

Business conduct can be unethical but can it be immoral?

 

Certainly there might be situations where a business is operating legally and yet an operator is behaving unethically but for that to be the case, wouldn't there need to be an intent to deceive for behaviour to be considered unethical?

 

I guess I'd need an example to know what you're talking about specifically.

 

I think the discussion eventually came down to proving intent and the most important question to me is "was there an intent to be purposefully deceptive or fraudulent"?

 

I don't believe there was.

[Boba]

Just great, more good news for the hobby.

[scooter99]

Bidding up books with no intention of buying them and then rescinding said bid speaks for itself. It's BS, pure and simple, whether "legal" or not.

 

Thank you to whoever started this thread. I'll be certain never to bid in one of MCA's auctions.

[mrmyst]

Leaving aside the particulars of this case, I found VC's comments that the owner of a firm cannot be held to have behaved unethically if the actions of the firm were within the law to be surprising. This seems equivalent to saying that any actions taken by a firm that are not illegal must be considered ethical. But perhaps I misunderstood him.

 

Keep in mind that I'm neither a lawyer or a philosopher by trade. I'm a comic dealer.

 

My understanding is that there is the law, there is ethics (upon which laws are based) and there is morality - which is personal. They they are 3 separate things.

 

Putting aside the matter of MCA, the gist of what I wrote was that discussing the legality of a business and the morality of a person are two distinctly separate things.

 

Business conduct can be unethical but can it be immoral?

 

Certainly there might be situations where a business is operating legally and yet an operator is behaving unethically but for that to be the case, wouldn't there need to be an intent to deceive for behaviour to be considered unethical?

 

I guess I'd need an example to know what you're talking about specifically.

 

I think the discussion eventually came down to proving intent and the most important question to me is "was there an intent to be purposefully deceptive or fraudulent"?

 

I don't believe there was.

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

[Boba]

Wow. Bidding up one's own lots, only to withdraw them at the end to give the win to the next (2nd) highest bidder just sounds wrong to me. I mean I usually don't bid the same way when I'm bidding against someone. And I bet most humans like me, they are provoked by the competition to bid higher. I think Joeypost said it succinctly - set the reserve and let the chips fall where they will. Moving-target reserves sound shady to me.

[VintageComics]

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

 

 

In the video it was very clear that there was full disclosure every step of the way. If you were live and in person, I don't think the word deceptive applies because they didn't hide anything.

 

If the internet bidders were not privy to the same information then it's a different story. I did ask earlier in the thread whether they fully disclosed it to internet bidders the way they did on the video to live bidders. Was it in the agreement (although I suppose anyone could have also watched the live feed) I never got an answer.

 

That is where I think the disconnect stems from.

 

Wrong?

 

At this point, not for the live bidder but possibly for the internet bidder if they were unaware of what was happening.

 

Additionally, it's complicated by the fact that MCA said bluechip could withdraw his bid but he said he was unable to figure out how to do so.

 

 

It's was a mess.

 

I personally wouldn't auction something that way myself but I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

 

[mrmyst]

Roy, I agree with most of what you've posted, as it's been an even-handed approach. BUT, when the auction house bids, then retracts and leaves the 2nd highest bidder as high bidder, that's deceptive. And it's wrong, don't you think?

 

 

In the video it was very clear that there was full disclosure every step of the way. If you were live and in person, I don't think the word deceptive applies because they didn't hide anything.

 

If the internet bidders were not privy to the same information then it's a different story. I did ask earlier in the thread whether they fully disclosed it to internet bidders the way they did on the video to live bidders. Was it in the agreement (although I suppose anyone could have also watched the live feed) I never got an answer.

 

That is where I think the disconnect stems from.

 

Wrong?

 

At this point, not for the live bidder but possibly for the internet bidder if they were unaware of what was happening.

 

Additionally, it's complicated by the fact that MCA said bluechip could withdraw his bid but he said he was unable to figure out how to do so.

 

 

It's was a mess.

 

I personally wouldn't auction something that way myself but I think poor procedure more accurately describes what happened.

 

 

(thumbs u

 

Always appreciate your even-handed approach. It is in fact somewhat rare.