375+ # 0384

I know it has been promised by OJ, but a full transcript of the Ford/Lawson defence and counterclaim has been posted on the other site. Much to read and still digest but the much anticipated "game changing" claim appears to be that "Bonhams and Ms Swaters did not want and never had any intention of selling the car at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013" and "acted to frustrate" to make it "impossible to sell the car".

The claim is, Bonham and Swaters made a "secret agreement" to miss the 2013 sale in order to enable further time to "rehabilitate the reputation of Mr Swaters, Ms Swaters and the car" thereby making it impossible to "achieve and appropriate price for the car if it was sold at that time". By their action they had "deliberately misrepresented the position to the defendants" when they proceeded with the HOA. The claim is based on a number of emails between Bonhams and Swaters (sent after the 12th March 2013 date of the HOA) that OJ has obtained which now explain his earlier cryptic posts about hacking and seeing and sharing their cards.

The claim then goes on to give examples of Swaters sending the car to Bonhams in violation of the status quo order, and her not agreeing to the defendants attorney agreements as evidence of their plan to frustrate and delay the sale. Surprisingly there is no reference to the fact that Swaters went to court for a POA and an order to ship the parts but there is reference to the Ohio parts being the real "DNA of the car which gave it its rarity, authenticity and value" even though it is also claimed that Bonhams did not need the "DNA" parts for the catalogue.

So there you have it. Swaters is accused of employing secret delaying tactics to buy time to rehabilitate the cars value from all of the adverse publicity and Ford/Lawson were doing everything in their power to meet the 2013 deadline.

 

But isn't part of the stated Ford/Lawson reasoning of agreeing to the HOA that the auction would be held September 2013 and thereby have a near term payout? If that was the inducement for their agreeing to the HOA but when that in fact was not the "real" timeline would that not be relevant? Are there words related to the 2013 auction using "best efforts" or ""projected" that would indicate that the 2013 auction was less than a concrete commitment?

 

I am not a solicitor but in the UK context, I have always understood a "heads of agreement' to be a simply worded agreement to outline the intention of the parties prior to the drafting of a comprehensive legal document. Accordingly, most HoA's are prefaced with a statement that they are non legally binding and subject to contract but in this case the HoA is a legally binding document with the consequence, and as has been clearly illustrated on this thread, the wording can subject to different interpretation on all sides.

I cannot find your "best efforts" clause but the agreement does include reference to "working closely together to resolve all problems" and for Bonhams to sell the car at auction. In applying the dispute clause the Court will start with determining the intention of the parties at the time and here, secret plan or not, the intention for all concerned has always been to sell the car for the maximum amount and divide the proceeds. The objective of selling the car has been completed. Who dragged their feet and was to blame for the diminution in value is still subject to dispute.

So what is OJ's game plan ?

My guess is that he has to resurrect the Ohio claim if he and consequently Wexner have any chance of success. He has failed opening a new case and will have difficulty arguing jurisdiction on his appeal given that he has already accepted service in London. This leaves his new game changing "breach of fiduciary duty inducement" argument in the appeal but how that applies to the Ohio appeal is definitely above my skill set but I would appreciate being educated.

Roll on the 3rd February, reporters and all

K

 

Many pages back I posted quotes from a December 2013 hearing before Hamilton County Ohio Circuit Court Judge Martin, iirc, at which Joe Ford was represented by *three* attorneys. The subject was some application that Chris Gardner was making. Joe Ford's attorneys opposed on the ground that the Heads of Agreement continued to be in effect and to be controlling with respect to the sale of the car. This opposition was successful. In other words, three months after the September 2013 auction sale had fallen through, Joe Ford was continuing to contend that the HoA was in effect in all respects, and controlling. Unless something happened subsequent to December 2013, which was effective to negate this party admission, Joe Ford is bound to it. I made this point in that earlier post, and Joe Ford has never responded.

He has also posted that the reason that Florence Swaters's choice, in the pre-September 2013 time frame, to route through Bonhams all communications with Lawson or Ford, was a material breach sufficient to justify Lawson and Ford's subsequent pre-auction non-performance of the terms of the HoA, was that the resulting two-step line of communication would frustrate Kristi Lawson's extremely important need to collaborate with Swaters to draft a history of the car to her liking. I wrote many posts ago that this was both a foolish value and an impossible goal. Joe Ford has never responded to explain how this foolish and ultimately futile project was frustrated in fact by the two-step communication that Swaters preferred to follow. For example, did Kristi Lawson ever work up a draft of this history document? For another, in what respect was the Bonhams catalog description inadequate, if not as a final draft but as a foundation for a history that Lawson would accept. If Ford and Lawson are unable to come forward with anything more than, Swaters chose to insert Bonhams between her and Lawson, and this was a breach of the agreement to collaborate on this crucial written history, sufficient to negate the entire deal, this line of argument would not pass the laugh test.

Joe Ford often writes that the parties agreed to stay the litigation pending a quick auction sale, and to resume litigation post haste if the auction did not take place in September 2013. Yet Joe Ford, Kristi Lawson, and all their attorneys put together never moved to stay anything. Either this was a malpractice-level oversight, or Joe Ford's repeated references to the importance of a stay are a recent invention.

Finally, I am still not understanding the court reporter issue. Why would anyone oppose having a written record of the words spoken in an open court proceeding, other than an intention to lie about those words at some later date?

 

Thank you Bill. Fords Memorandum in opposition of a reporter at the 3rd February hearing is posted elsewhere and extracted below. His Bonhams defence is peppered with denials of statements made by he, Lawson and their Attorneys at the Ohio hearings. As you have already highlighted, what is being stated differs depending on which side of the pond you are standing

K

"There is no provision in the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Local Rules of the First District Court of Appeals, or Ohio law that provides for the relief requested, i.e., the presence of a Court Reporter at oral argument. On this basis, alone, the Motion should be denied.

The underlying matters involve very contentious litigation, including cases pending in Hamilton County, Ohio, and multiple actions pending in the High Court of Justice in London, England. As such, it has become the practice of Appellee’s counsel to obtain transcripts of hearing and arguments, and to use anything and everything possible – in or out of the proper context – in courts around the world. Oral argument is intended to permit a free flow of ideas and argument on the issues before the Court. Counsel and the parties should not be constrained by considerations of what comments or arguments may be utilized, in whole or in part, in other actions.

Therefore, Appellant Joseph Ford, III, requests that this Court deny the Appellees’ Motion for Court Reporter at the Oral Argument of this case."

 

Bill, you are incorrect. First, I have NEVER been represented by three attorneys. The Rinear comment about when the HOA applied referred to the Judge's question "at this point in time" which is in reference to the original HOA timetable, not the date on which the question was asked. Attempting to hang your hat on that lone, vague, inartfully crafted question, as Bonhams also tried to do, just shows how desperate the opponents grab for straws has become.

Fewer people in a chain of communication means fewer miscommunications. Here, we have just discovered that Bonhams would tell Swaters one thing and then turn around and tell us something different. That is why direct communications are superior. It was agreed that "the parties shall work closely together with one another" . . . subverted in order to prevent our discovery of the misrepresentations that had been deliberately made.

Bill, you are incorrect, again. The stay was drafted and Swaters signature was then sought. First, read the Haas proposed April 18, 2013 Order. Second, read Swaters' attorneys May 13, 2013 proposed order. They BOTH generate the stay and an agreed end to the case pending distribution of proceeds per the express terms of HOA. Swaters refused to sign her own attorney's proposed entry. Let me state that again. Swaters refused to sign her own attorney's proposed entry. Those are two important documents you missed - the oversight.

The reason is because transcripts have been misused. The UK folks miss the distinction between a transcript and the subsequent Order that makes a conclusion of law or fact -- more than once they attempted to quote from each as if interchangeable. You and I know the difference, but apparently others choose not to. The water is less muddy when there are only Orders to refer to - nothing more sinister than that, as explained in the reply to the motion.

Sorry if I do not get to all the questions that may be asked. Often they have been answered in earlier posts. If the question is only rhetorical, I will not bother.

Joe

*

 

It is too tedious and time consuming to respond in full to all the half-truths and trimming in Joe Ford's response. Here are some quick responses:

At the December 2013 hearing three attorneys argued in opposition to Gardner's application. The ground on which they relied was that the HoA continued to be in effect and controlling in that post-September 2013 timeframe. All three attorneys -- by word and by silent acquiescence -- took this position at multiple points in the colloquy.

No party ever moved Judge Nadel for a stay, and no stay was ever entered.

The issue with respect to Swaters's choice to communicate with Lawson and Ford only through Bonhams is not whether this choice facilitated inappropriate conduct on the part of Bonhams or Lawson. The issue is, to quote from my post, "how this foolish and ultimately futile project" -- i.e., the creation of a kumbaya history of #0384 -- "was frustrated in fact by the two-step communication that Swaters preferred to follow. For example, did Kristi Lawson ever work up a draft of this history document?" Joe Ford's answer is non-responsive to that issue. It is also absurd to contend that Swaters's choice not to communicate directly with Ford and Lawson was necessary, or even helpful, to the perpetration of inappropriate conduct on the part of Swaters or Bonhams.

To argue against the taking of a hearing transcript on the ground that its existence threatens to create confusion and ambiguity is a non sequitur.

 

COMMON PLEAS COURT
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

CHRISTOPHER GARDNER, Plaintiff, vs JOSEPH FORD, et al, Defendants.

CASE NO. A-1306451

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

APPEARANCES:
Zachary Gottesman, Esq. On behalf of the Plaintiff.
Edward J. Collins, Esq , Richard J. Rinear, Esq. On behalf of the Defendant.
Scott Jones, Esq. On behalf of Florence Swaters
Timothy Smith, Also Present. (Who was handling the appeal)

BE IT REMEMBERED that upon the hearing of this cause, in the Common Pleas Court, before the Honorable Steven Martin, judge of the said Court of Common Pleas, on the 16th day of December, 2013, the following proceedings were had, to wit:


Extract Page 12:


THE COURT:. Is it your client’s position that Bonhams, at this point anyway, has the exclusive right to transfer this vehicle, sell the vehicle, handle all the stuff and resolve any title issues if they exist?

MR. RINEAR: Yes.

THE COURT: okay.

MR. RINEAR: Now, I will tell you, some of that is on appeal because there are some issues that Mr. Ford and Miss Lawson have raised. We don’t represent Mr. Ford in the appeal. They have appealed some of what Judge Nadel did. But as it stands right now, Bonhams holds everything.

 

Here is one post I wrote about Joe Ford's multiple post-September 2013 representations that the HoA continued to be in effect and controlling with respect to #3084:

 

Bill, and this applies to Kim as well --

Your quote is from a transcript on a hearing as to whether to reform the Ohio title. The issues raised, briefed, and then addressed at that hearing reached the conclusion that there was no fraud on the title, that Gardner's prior attorney approved of it, and thus the Ohio title should not be changed, under either an equity or at law analysis.

It is bizarre that you think that context and those comments mean anything other than they meant at the time applied to the topic being discussed at the time. Pursuant to Nadels' August 19, 2013 Order, and under protest, Lawson and Ford released their property and documents to Bonhams. A that point and as a result, Bonhams holds (i.e. possesses) everything.

A subsequent Judge such as Judge Martin must extend to the prior Judge Nadel a presumption of regularity, i.e. that what Judge Nadel did was correct. Thus the subsequent Judge saw no need nor reason to reform the title, and the subsequent Judge was aware that what the prior Judge did was under appeal, thus raising another issue as to any intrusion into the prior Judge acts presently on appeal was impermissible for yet another reason. At the end of the hearing, and this is where the rubber meets the road, the Judge refused to disturb the Ohio title that shows Ford and Lawson as the owners. That is the "take-away" of that entire hearing.

So you need to understand the context of the issues and the exchange. You and Kim do a disservice to this board when you try to take excerpts out of their context and when you try to reach conclusions about issues that were not briefed nor raised.

Look for final court orders as the only indicators of an official court conclusion. Look at the Motions with Supporting Briefs to determine the scope and purpose of a given hearing.

Tks,

Joe

*

 

Two things I know. One is that a party is bound to his or her admissions, whether made in discovery responses, in testimony, in out of court statements, in legal briefs, or in oral argument. The other is that an honest person who takes a position in litigation will be advocating that position at every opportunity, with clarity and without equivocation, while a dishonest person in litigation will change positions according to the needs of the moment, will shave the truth, will always speak with equivocation, and will constantly need to trace a zig-zag path through what is true in order to arrive at his intended destination.

In any event I'll take your advice. Post your Answer brief in opposition to Gardner's motion, or at least that part of it which dealt with the status of the HoA in the post-September 2013 timeframe, and we'll see for ourselves where you informed Judge Martin that your litigation posture is, was, and always will be that the HoA ceased to have any effect after the September 2013 Goodwood Festival came and went with no auction sale of #3084. Either you stated your reservation of rights with respect to that posture in your Answer brief to Judge Martin, or you had not yet adopted that posture (or had held it and abandoned it), or you misled Judge Martin. Because Judge Martin most surely did conclude that "nobody is talking about . . . driving it home" -- i.e., it was the posture of nobody who was present in that post-September 2013 courtroom that Bonhams did not retain its agency to sell the car at some future auction -- and your attorneys sat there in silence and let him maintain that understanding.

 

Joe, this is breathtaking hypocrisy and you under estimate the intelligence of the members to reach their own conclusion based on complete documents (posted elsewhere) and why you seek to gag open reporting at the Appeal hearing.

K

 

Kim,

I have witnessed people misquote a transcript and cause a massive waste of attorney time and court resources. Instead of focusing on the official court Order - i.e. the official net result of the transcript, people are wasting time on the arguing and exchanges in the transcript.

I can't stop you (or anyone) from presenting only parts of an exchange, but I hope you (or anyone) would be mindful that when you do so, it tends to mislead others.

I think that if you (or anyone) would devote as much time to the words of actual UK LAWS, or actual COURT ORDERS, or actual US LAWS you would have a much more serious debate about actual issues.

For example, how does Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner escape the UK law (attached below) about offering goods for sale when they have no permission, thus no right to sell, from two of the consignors?

For example, do you think Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner are obligated to disclose the fact of ON-GOING LITIGATION to potential bidders?

Did Swaters and Gardner tell Bonhams NOT to disclose ON-GOING LITIGATION to potential bidders, or to disclose that ON-GOING LITIGATION had been settled when indeed case A1306451 and A1001370 were ON-GOING, the latter being on appeal. Bonhams just learned that until appeals are exhausted, a case is not over --- Bonhams, Swaters, and Gardner witnessed the May 28, 2014 Order that reversed the August 19, 2013 Order, declaring it illegitimate as it was made without lawful authority, i.e. void ab initio.

For example, do you think Bonhams is obligated to disclose the fact that the Ohio BMV placed an ADMINISTRATIVE HOLD on the Ohio title preventing any conveyance due to ONGOING OHIO LITIGATION. This administrative hold refers to the Ohio title that lists Ford and Lawson as owners.

How does Bonhams satisfy its duty of good faith and fair dealing, or satisfy a fiduciary relationship when it makes side deals with one of the consignors?

If Bonhams believed the HOA was effective as to the June 2014 auction, then why the need to amend it on Jan 2, 2014 to make it effective as to the June 2014 auction?

Even if property were consigned for a June 2014 auction, if at the last minute two of the consignors say "do not sell", on what grounds is Bonhams justified in attempting to sell, only to then end up, predictably and avoidably, in litigation?

If the HOA applies as others argue, then what about the requirement that 100% of the hammer price be distributed, and that all claims and counterclaims be extinguished "on distribution" of 100% of the hammer price. That condition precedent has not occurred.

IMHO, the above are more focused questions as to what issues are pertinent and how the UK court will look to resolve them.

I think there are several MAJOR problems with Bonhams case. I think a highly qualified and capable Plaintiff (i.e. Copley and Wexner) will surely point this out to Bonhams, to Swaters, and to Gardner, and Bonhams will not win -- due to their own misrepresentations to potential bidders. I can not imagine a Queen's Counsel, once fully informed as to the above, will remain on to defend what is clearly, to me and to many others, indefensible. I would hope that they inform Bonhams of the many problems they face, such that wasteful litigation need not occur.

Since you found a copy of the Defences and Counterclaims on the internet at the "other site", I urge you to re-read it, or, better yet, to have a UK attorney explain what and why something is stated.

And there is more, as you will soon see and hear. Keep an open mind.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe, I do try to keep an open mind but have to admit I dislike your tactics of incomplete posting, evading difficult questions, buying support and finally publicly assassinating anyone against you. I am most grateful for your contribution to this thread and initially supported your crusade on behalf of Kleves estate. I am sorry to say that this support started to diminish after you walked away (taking Lawson with you) from a 50/50 settlement because you wanted 80/20.

Back to your previous post !

Joe, to use your words:

You cannot claim the Court concluded there was no fraud and that the title could be changed.

Read the transcripts (extracts below). Judge Martin makes it clear on page 40 that he did not agree with your res judicata motion and questions if an appeal should take place before ruling on the title. Furthermore, when he made his final statement on page 58, Judge Martin was in the belief (as confirmed by your attorney) that the title could not be changed and that "Bonhams had exclusive right to transfer this vehicle, sell the vehicle, handle all the stuff and resolve any title issues". He clearly understood the ramification of a "cloud over the title", its effect on value and somewhat prophetically of the danger that someone (You) would approach the new owner (Mr Wexner)and claim "you paid a lot of money for this and it’s not your car; it’s mine".

Judge Martin, Bonhams, the Belgium Contingent, Gardner and Wexner all believed the title issue was resolved when the car was sold. Clearly you have a different opinion. I am afraid that I simply do not know but await the court transcripts with much excitement.

K

PS: I will consider your previous post and respond in due course.


Page 40 THE COURT: The problem as I sit here with your res judicata motion, with that issue is that the mere failure to do something doesn’t -- doesn’t preclude it being done at another point in time. The question is, with an appeal pending over issues involving the very same vehicle and the very same parties, would it be wiser to let that appeal take place and finish before I start making any rulings on what the title is or what it should be.


Page 58: MR. RINEAR: Are we in agreement to bifurcate then so we’re just going to try the title issue

THE COURT: No.

MR. RINEAR -- in February?

THE COURT: No. what i would like you to do is discuss it amongst yourselves and see if you can come to an agreement. If not, I will decide it. But it seems to me that if – it seems to me that the title issue, as I said, needs to be resolved maybe -- well, may need to be resolved so that the maximum dollar value is obtained for the vehicle.

Anytime there’s a cloud on the title, whether it’s put on by Ford or whether it’s put on by Gardner or whether there’s an issue outstanding involving litigation, nobody wants -- you know, somebody might offer -- it stands to reason somebody might offer less for something if somebody else from somewhere in some state court can. come back on them to say, hey, look, okay, you paid a lot of money for this and it’s not your car; it’s mine. So, yeah, I mean, it would seem to me it would make sense to do that. Let me give it some thought.

Thank you. (Court recessed at 10:30 a.m.)

 

Joe Ford as always deserves full marks for the time and energy he devotes to this on line message board thread. It would be great if the other players did likewise -- great for we FChat members but not so much for them. By the way if any attorney on the other side from Joe Ford has not taken a screen shot of the previous post, they're really asleep at the switch. In fact, to lend a helping hand I'll quote it in full at the bottom of this post, as last edited by Joe Ford at 8:59 a.m. PST on January 21.

As far as the merits of Joe Ford's contentions in the previous post, there are too many to respond one at a time. However a few responses will answer most of them. These responses have been posted up before, but here they are again:

Regarding the lack of consent on the part of Ford and Lawson to a sale by Bonhams, the HoA constitutes what is generically referred to as a Settlement Agreement and Release of the claims that Swaters was asserting against Lawson and Ford, and of the claims of Ford and Lawson against Swaters. On May 28, 2014 -- one month prior to the June 27 auction sale -- the Ohio First District Court of Appeals entered a Final Judgment in the case of Swaters v. Lawson and Ford, in sole reliance on the terms of the HoA/SAR. Joe Ford did not appeal this ruling and it is long since final.

One thing to keep in mind about an SAR is that it is not like any other contract. It is enforceable by the court having jurisdiction over the matter that the SAR has disposed of, with no need for a new litigation alleging breach of contract or seeking e.g. specific performance. Its terms continue to be in effect and enforceable unless and until a party is successful in persuading the court having jurisdiction to revise them.

So if we look at the HoA/SAR what do we find with respect to a consent to the sale on June 27, 2014? Here are most of the relevant quotes. (A few are omitted because of redundancy):

"The parties have entered these Heads of Agreement to set out the terms on which . . . (b) Bonhams has agreed to sell the Car by public auction." [¶ 1.]

"Bonhams is appointed the world-wide exclusive agent of BC [Swaters] and of the OC Parties [Lawson, Ford and Gardne] to sell the Car by public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013." [¶ 3.]

"BC and OC Parties will surrender all existing registration documents, USA titles, Bill of Sales, and other conveyance documents they possess individually or jointly to be reviewed by Bonham’s as to the validity of which documents will be used in the conveyance to a new owner procured by Bonham’s for this Ferrari." [¶ 11.]

"All spare parts (including the spare engine and the original body panels), miscellaneous items, documents, photographs or records relating to the Car will be included in the sale of the Car at no additional cost or charge. All liens on the parts will be released by the lien holder (s)." [¶ 7.]

"Neither BC nor the OC Parties will enter any discussion with any third party in connection with the sale or marketing of the Car or otherwise in connection with it." [¶ 9.]

"BC [Swaters] will arrange for the Car and all parts (including a spare engine), document, records and photographs in her possession to be transported to Bonhams in England for storage until the Car has been sold and paid for." [¶ 5.]

"The OC Parties [Lawson, Ford and Gardner] will arrange for all parts (including original body panels), fuel tank and documents, records and photographs in their possession to be transported to Bonhams in England for storage until the Car has been sold and paid for." [¶ 5.]

"Nothing will be withheld by all parties from the combining of the existing parts with Bonham’s belonging to the 375 Ferrari for this sale, including all rights to all pieces owned by each of the parties." [¶ 10.]

"The proceeds of sale of the Car will be divided in the proportion 50% to the BC Parties and 50% to OC – which represents 100% of the hammer price at auction." [¶ 6.]

I think we can all agree that their signatures to these provisions constitute consent on the part of Ford and Lawson to a sale by Bonhams. The only dispute has to do with how the parties intended to deal with the contingency, that it became either impossible, or inconsistent with the parties' best interests, to proceed with the specified "public auction at no reserve at the Goodwood Revival in September 2013." [¶ 3.] This is a question of construction of contract. I wrote about this in Post #2451, and I'll copy and paste it here:

"Yes, I get it. We can copy this formulation and paste it in every post. I get it. The problem is that this formulation is of such recent vintage. It does not appear that you shared it with anyone in March 2013, or that you included it in the HoA prior to everyone signing the HoA. This leaves it a matter of construction of contract, what did the parties to the HoA intend to happen if their failure to perform in Summer 2013 made it impossible for Bonhams to auction the car on September 15? You contend that the parties intended on September 16 to revive their three-year-old litigation and to dive back into that whole vat of muck. I find that very hard to believe. So do three of the five parties to the HoA. So does every court which has heard an application since September 2013. As to Lawson, I don't see her as particularly enthusiastic to jump in either. I sure don't see the upside for her, and I see a lot of downside."

In any event, it is false to represent that Ford (and/or Lawson) did not consent to a sale of #0384 by Bonhams. They did consent to that sale, and the Ohio courts have repeatedly entered orders either to enforce the operative agreement, or have acted with the understanding that the HoA/SAR was in effect and controlling. Joe Ford consented to the sale, and even after the September 2013 sale became impossible he continued to represent, in and out of Court, that the HoA continued to be in effect and controlling. The only honest statement that Joe Ford can make is that he consented to a sale in September 2013, and that there is a dispute between the parties regarding how they intended to respond to the contingency that a September 2013 sale did not happen.

Moving on to the other major point, regarding Bonhams' duty of disclosure, we have also posted on this subject before as well. Here's one such post, #2204:

What I understand Bonhams' posture to be, in general terms, is that they are merely a conduit, a neutral medium, dedicated to bringing together buyers and sellers of rare and expensive goods. Ocean Joe apparently contends that an auction house has a duty to disclose to a potential buyer every fact or contingency of which the auction house is aware and which might affect the value of the goods on offer. Ocean Joe apparently contends further that if they fail to do so then they are liable to the buyer for the difference between the value of the goods with these facts and contingencies known to all, and the price the buyer paid in the absence of such knowledge. I think we will all agree that this set of rules would shut down the fine art and collectibles auction business overnight.

I have also written numerous times that a claimant of intentional or negligent misrepresentation must have actually relied on the misrepresentation (e.g., the claimant did not actually know the true facts), and this reliance must have been reasonable (e.g., it must not have been the case that the claimant could have discovered the true facts with a reasonable inquiry). Anyone who's ever bought a used freaking 10 year old Honda for 2,500 bucks knows that you can easily be screwed in such a deal if you don't make a reasonable inquiry into the truth of the goods. When you're paying for a single car as much money as ten average people will earn in a 50 year working lifetime, you really really ought to be embarrassed to contend that the only inquiry you reasonably need to perform is to review some glossy promotional material the day of the sale. If nothing else you need to barred from any future auction sales.

Well I'll stop there. Another hour of my life I'll never get back.

 

No, 180 Out, you will not get that hour back. But let me assure you that I, and I'm sure many other, FChat readers appreciate your contributions. I am learning a lot. Thanks, thanks much.

 

Problem for me is that I know Joe is biased.
I have felt like Kim was for awhile. And so Kim admits it.
But now Bill seems to have lost his objective view. Now only sees a formed view. Lawyer or not some one has to lose lawyers are on both sides.

We will see.

 

If you know whose side I'm on I wish you'd share it with me, because I have no idea how this will play out. I don't think I know more than 10% of the material facts or 5% of the controlling law. And no one in a lawsuit ever knows how the breaks will fall.

 

+1

 

Sean, I am with Bill, who do you think I am supporting ?

I have no idea how this will end but my only stated bias is that I would like to see the heirs of Karl Kleve end up with something. Questioning OJ is not an indication of bias in my book and I would be doing the same to the other players if they were posting

What would you like to see as an outcome ?

 

Outcome Coming:

Ford/Lawson’s attorneys on the right – Gardner’s on the left :

Judge Martin Presiding January 20, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk8S3q49myA

Judge Steven Martin SAYS:
at 08:15 min : Explains Bonhams
at 09:30 min : Explains Gardner
at 13:15 min : Explains Joe Ford/Ocean Joe
at 14:43 min : ‘’Was Bonhams’ trying to screw anyone?’’
at 20:00 min : Tim Smith on Charlie Morse and the ‘’ non-existent Delahaye’’

Google-Ohio Lawsuit - Kristine Lawson + Joseph L. Ford ... – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk8S3q49myA

 

Good call Bill. Seeing sides in all this internet banter with not much to back it up is impossible.

My comment simply related to my impression of how your expert analysis of the subject as we know it has changed in my opinion as the thread has progressed.

And thank you I do enjoy reading when you post.

 

Very interesting to watch a Court hearing without a powdered wig or gown in sight. TV in an English Court is new phenomenon

First Televised Court Hearing Makes History

I understand the relevance of the Morse case but can someone explain the urgency and why the defendants attorneys are so unwilling to wait for the Arbitration ?

As always its the comments from the Judge that gives the most interesting incite and UNBIASED view on the case and what is going on. Accordingly, I will not comment on his opinion on Bonhams motivation (timed 8:49) or on OJ (timed 8:54).

 

Return the stolen car to its proper owners. Kleves family.

 

I actually watched this 45 min video all the way through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk8S3q49myA Funny but sad that Kristi Lawson's attorney Tim Smith is billing her thousands of dollars to file a motion for a declaration that Chris Gardner is a fraud and a thief. I wonder if she knows that her hard earned money is being spent on such nonsense. I was also struck by the lack of decorum in this Ohio courtroom. Attorneys talking over each other, talking over the judge too! One is reminded of the Duke of Wellington's remark about his own troops, "I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."

One other point, Bonhams will be very gratified by Judge Martin's conclusions regarding Bonhams' conduct, aka Joe Ford's game-changing bombshell, that Bonhams' only interest was to maximize the take at auction, that Bonhams couldn't care less how the proceeds are divided afterwards.

Next hearing: March 2.