375+ # 0384

Where the promoter makes a representation that it knows to be false, this is fraud. Where the promoter should have known the representation was false, but negligently failed to learn of its falsity, this is negligent misrepresentation. The remedies vary according to the cause of action, but the same defense applies to both: that the burden is on the claimant to show that it did rely on the representation -- e.g., it did not have actual knowledge of the falsity -- and that it was reasonable to have relied on the representation -- e.g., it is not reasonable to trade the family cow for a handful of "magic" beans.

In other words, even where the promoter knows its representation is false, there is no cause of action for fraud or negligent misrepresentation if the claimant also knew of the falsity.

 

If does go to trial in London it would be quite interesting to have an independent 3rd party give running commentary. Let's face it anyone of the participants is only interested in presenting their "facts" here in the most favorable way.

As for the auction house situation we can logically assume that they have a legal opinion that they think, or thought at the time, would be plausible for them to continue with the auction. But we should remember that there have been other instances of high profile cars pulled by auction houses when issues have arisen.

I do believe that OJ has a contention that in this instance the auction house may not have an arms length relationship with how the car was consigned. If true, that might change the concept of only being the conduit between seller and buyer.

 

Thank you for the analysis.

What if the potential buyer is being told by the promoter that "it is all being resolved" and art of that resolution is the successful auction itself. So the bidder proceeds based upon this assurance even though they are aware that disputes have been going on. Would this change the consideration of "reasonable to have relied on the representation"?

Not saying that this is what happened but you have given a specific defense argument based upon one version of what might have occurred.

 

My "hypothetical" is based on the actual terms of the agreements between Bonhams, Swaters/Gardner, and Wexner/Copley, as set forth in the Bonhams catalog for its June 27, 2014 Goodwood auction. Go to this site -- Bonhams : The Goodwood Festival of Speed Sale: Collector's Motor Cars and Automobilia -- and click "DOWNLOAD CATALOGUE PDF" and see for yourself. In substance the contracts provide that the only verbiage in the catalog entry for any given item, which is incorporated into the contract between the seller and the buyer, is the part that's presented in bold face. All the rest is essentially puffery and is not binding on the seller or on Bonhams.

I am attaching the first page of the lengthy catalog entry for no. 0384. This is the only page which includes bold face type. The bold face type is as follows:

‘The Fearsome Four-Nine’
The Ferrari factory team, Mille Miglia, Le Mans and Silverstone
May Meeting - ex-Umberto Maglioli, ex-José Froilán González,
ex-Jim Kimberly, ex-Troy Ruttman, ex-Howard Hively
1954 4.9-litre FERRARI 375-PLUS
SPORTS -RACING TWO-SEAT SPIDER COMPETIZIONE
BY CAROZZERIA PININ FARINA

Note that not even the chassis number is presented in bold. Nor is this language on p. 128 (copy attached):

"While litigation triggered by its extraction from Karl Kleve’s tenure ensued within the US, ‘0384 AM’ has remained in Europe ever since. Messrs Swaters and Lanksweert had it gleamingly restored in Modena, under the supervision of respected former factory Assistenza manager Gaetano Florini. . . . Swaters showed the car in Brussels and at Spa in 1992 and – most importantly - reached a settlement with Karl Kleve in the US."

Nor is this language on p. 130 (copy attached):

"Today – with all relevant litigation settled - this magnificently presented ex- González Silverstone-winning, ex-Maglioli Mille Miglia and Le Mans works Ferrari is now poised to enter a caring new ownership. It is accompanied by all the once Kleve-removed original components, its 1954 works team body paneling – still in Hiveley’s 1957 Cuban GP livery – engine cover, boot lid, spare brake drums, numerous original Borrani wire wheels (still shod with contemporary tyres), all the excised corroded chassis tubes, the late-replacement V12 engine, and even the numerous casting patterns used in that unit’s manufacture."
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Happy to volunteer as the Court is only three stops on the tube and I love wearing a powdered wig

 

Before the claimant can get to the issue of reasonable reliance, it must first show that it did rely on the misrepresentation. At a minimum this requires the absence of any knowledge of the falsity of the representation. In this case the pivotal representation seems to be the statement on p. 130 of the catalog that "Today . . . all relevant litigation is settled." Your hypothetical adds to that language the further representation that "the term 'today all relevant litigation is settled' means that, when the proceeds of our June 27 auction have been delivered to the parties to the Heads of Agreement, the parties to that Agreement will dismiss their lawsuits.'"

In order to get to the element of reasonable reliance, we must assume that the Buyer does not know that this additional representation is false. In fact, a single piece of correspondence between the Buyer and the Buyer's agent, showing knowledge of the fact that the August 19, 2013 Judgment to dismiss the Swaters v. Lawson case had been appealed; that the Court of Appeals had reversed the Judgment on May 28, on the ground that only the London High Court had the jurisdiction to rule on Swaters' request for that Judgment; and that therefore the Swaters v. Lawson lawsuit would continue to be at issue even after the June 27 auction -- would be sufficient to negate the requisite lack of knowledge.

In any event, to reach the issue of reasonable reliance, we must assume that the Buyer -- i.e., Wexner or Copley -- had no actual knowledge that it was false to represent that a completed auction, and the distribution of the proceeds, would be sufficient to make it true, that "all relevant litigation is settled." Assuming that this was the representation, and that they did lack the knowledge, I would have to say that it was reasonable for them to rely on that representation. At the same time, the assumptions that are needed to get that conclusion are too unlikely for it to have any bearing on Wexner's real world claims.

 

..." with all relevant litigation settled"... declaration in the final paragraph of the car's history in their brochure... leaves NO room to parse the legal ownership status and authority to sell, especially with all the notification received prior to the sale about the status and authority to effect a sale... Bonhams is in deep do=do in defending their position to sell and convey clear title... in the brochure they go to great lengths to deflect the ownership status with blather, then summarize as being "settled". They will be stuck with misrepresentation and fraud charges

 

Interesting inclusion of the word relevant the implication being that not all litigation was settled but only the litigation that effected the ownership of the car. Non relevant and outstanding litigation would include the cases on the division of the proceeds

 

"Heads Of Agreement" ( expired before sale ) is a tool to deflect from the true merits of title / ownership... and has no bearing on the title itself...
one needs to follow the trail of the title, not documents litigating as to who has it, the title as validated by the Ohio BMV is the only true measure of ownership... going into the auction tile was with the OC while Bonhams falsely claimed they had authority to sell and transfer

 

I can't guess how Bonhams intends to connect the dots, but I expect that it has *a lot* of experience with selling big ticket items where not all the claimants to title agree regarding the terms of the sale. I expect it comes up on a daily basis, e.g., where the property is part of a decedent's estate and the decedent's heirs are at each others' throats.

 

"WITH ALL RELEVANT LITIGATION SETTLED" well, that is NOT TRUE because:

IRREFUTABLE FACTS:

At the time the catalogue was written and distributed, case A1001370 Swaters v. Lawson had pending litigation - the appeal C1300604 by appellants Ford and Lawson. On May 28, 2014 Ford and Lawson won that appeal, and case returned from the appeal court to the trial court.

At the time of the auction, case A1001370 Swaters v. Lawson again had pending litigation - appeal C140270 by appellants Ford and Lawson. That litigation is still pending, and my view is the chances are HIGH that Ford and Lawson will again prevail - the issue is much more clear cut about re-instating claims that were improperly dismissed. Ford and Lawson already won a partial victory when the appellate court DENIED Gardner's Motion to Dismiss. The writing is on the wall.

So, IMHO, Bonhams knew or should have known litigation was pending, and should have disclosed that, as well as disclosed the Gardner block on any conveyance of title until pending litigation ends. Bonhams should also have disclosed the TWO FACTS that Ford and Lawson did not consent to the auction or sale. Thus for multiple, independent reasons there should not have been an auction because honest disclosures would basically say all owners do not consent to selling.

Arguing otherwise requires one to be intellectually dishonest.

AND ANOTHER THING:

Please spare me the HOA excuses. If Bonhams attempts to rely on the HOA, then read HOA paragraph 2 - it literally refers to litigation pending until "distribution of funds from the sale to the signees" [Ferrari Chat p.80, post #1597, transcribed at #1598, or #1697] That prevents anyone from representing that litigation is over, or implying, as they did, that title could be conveyed prior to distributing funds to HOA signees.

Additionally, not only did the HOA expire by its terms, but new evidence will show it was never a legal or binding contract. Can't yet say more just yet.

Joe

*

 

I think no one disputes that, as of early June 2014, the statement "Today . . . all relevant litigation [is] settled" was false.

Again without knowing how Bonhams intends to connect the dots, the contracts at the back of the Goodwood catalog suggest that one defense would be to throw Swaters and Gardner under the bus -- and Ford and Lawson, too, if they are adjudged to be among the "Sellers" of #0384.

Here are some excerpts from the "Contract for Sale of the Lot by the Seller to the Buyer":

2.1 The Seller undertakes to you that:

2.1.1 the Seller is the owner of the Lot . . . ;
2.1.2 . . . the Seller sells the Lot with full title guarantee . . . ;
2.1.3 . . . the Seller is both legally entitled to sell the Lot, and legally capable of conferring on you quiet possession of the Lot and that the Sale conforms in every respect with the terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 12(1) and 12(2) . . . ;

Here's the part where the Buyer and Seller agree that the only parts of the written catalog entry which are merged into the contract of sale are the parts in bold face:

2.1.5 . . . the Lot corresponds with the Contractual Description of the Lot, being that part of the Entry about the Lot in the Catalogue which is in bold letters. . . .

I have selectively edited these excerpts for the sake of brevity. Attached is a copy of the full Contract for Sale of the Lot by the Seller to the Buyer, unedited.

Also attached is a complete copy of the "Contract between Bonhams personally and the Buyer." This document has its own set of provisions for throwing the Seller under the bus. Examples:

1.4 We act as agents for the Seller and are not answerable or personally responsible to you for any breach of contract or other default by the Seller, unless Bonhams sells the Lot as principal.

1.6 We do not make or give and do not agree to make or give any contractual promise, undertaking, obligation, Guarantee, warranty, representation of fact in relation to any Description of the Lot or any Estimate in relation to it, nor of the accuracy or completeness of any Description or Estimate which may have been made by us or on our behalf or by or on behalf of the Seller (whether made orally or in writing, including in the Catalogue or on Bonhams’ Website, or by conduct, or otherwise), and whether made before or after this agreement or prior to or during the Sale. No such Description or Estimate is incorporated into this agreement between you and us. Any such Description or Estimate, if made by us or on our behalf, was (unless Bonhams itself sells the Lot as principal) made as agent on behalf of the Seller.

10.1 We will not be liable whether in negligence, other tort, breach of contract or statutory duty or in restitution or under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or in any other way for lack of conformity with or any inaccuracy, error, misdescription or omission in any Description of the Lot or any Entry or Estimate in respect of it, made by us or on our behalf or by or on behalf of the Seller (whether made in writing, including in the Catalogue, or on the Bonhams’ Website, or orally, or by conduct or otherwise) and whether made before or after this agreement or prior to or during the Sale.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What is the likelihood that the auction house would have amended contract terms for "special" lots? I gather that some times buyer or sellers can have non-standard commission rates.

 

after reading Bohams boiler plate contract, they absolve themselves of everything except to collect their commission when acting as a broker... recourse accepted only to their sales as principles... as ugly as the brokerage contract reads, a seller generally cannot absolve themselves from misleading or short comings in the presentation for sale...
they would need make available all of their contracts / documents which facilitate / authorize a proper sale and transfer of the property... post sale a purchaser can make the same demands to verify a proper sale / transfer... from what has been disclosed on this topic, it appears Bonhams cannot present documents that would allow for a proper transfer of ownership... additionally the purchaser should collect the emails and other documents submitted to Bonhams from the OC by the OC contesting the authority for the sale... the challenge and lack of authority should negate Bonhams authority to sell and convey title, supercedes their claims in their contract, since they had nothing to sell and they sold it...
allowing for misrepresentation and fraud... essentially harboring and selling a stolen car

 

Joe

Can you explain your post 1384 on page 70

Your post refers to a Court order on June 9 2014 (printed 2013 in error) which you appealed on June 20 2014. What was the outcome of your appeal as it appears to state that the order ended the case. Can you post the details of the Court order ?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

As an interested bystander, I have quite some interest in this thread. While I don't know as much as some about the legal systems of the USA or the UK I do know a lot about auctions and the very particular culture that auto auctions have. The Goodwood auction is one of Bonhams two marquee auctions held each year, Quail Lodge being the other. In 2012 they sold the ex. Birkin Brooklands Bentley for record money, then last year they sold the Mercedes W196 for again record money. This year they had the 375 Plus and otherwise there was nothing truly special, just a bunch of cars, some good, some not.

Bonhams were relying on the 375 Plus to sell, if it didn't the auction would have been a waste of time, the highrollers would not have bothered looking, let alone attending and the auto media would have yawned their way through it. It is highly likely that if there was another star entry they might have been more inclined to redact the entry and continue with the auction but there wasn't. It has been mentioned in this thread that the home of car auctions is Monterey and indeed it is probable that to maximise sales revenue the place to sell is Monterey with either Gooding or RM and their marketing and reach is ideal for such a transaction. Bonhams Goodwood is a very specialised niche of a place and Bonhams ultimately doesn't have the reach of Gooding OR RM. I am often staggered by the lengths that the three aforementioned players will go to get the best consigments for sale but it is to be expected because the securing of a top consignment is the number 1 drawcard for other potential consigners. All sellers want to be selling just before the big lot comes on because that's when everyone who is interested will have their eyes glued to that screen and might just reach deep and buy your car. For the perfect example of an auction FAIL, Christies were going to sell the Auto Union D-Type in Paris a few years back and had to withdraw the lot due to ambiguities with its history, the auction just kind of fizzed out after that. Same thing would have happened here.

All that said, A couple of side issues that have stuck in my craw, (1) In an ideal world Monterey is where it would be hammered to a new (Happy?) owner. But for the Belgian contingent, the prospect selling in the USA that would come with a large side order of potential court ordered seizure at the border. (2) I have rarely seen a catalogue description including commentary about legal issues such as was printed in this, it is highly specific that legal issues ARE SETTLED, no ambiguity there. (3) It would be fascinating to know what the discussion was between the Cropley rep and the Bonhams rep, put yourself in the Bonhams rep's shoes, what would you say?.

IMO, Bonhams could quietly refund the money, issue a press statement stating legal fight with purchaser is resolved, store the car for a year or so and the media interest will die away. I would guess that the buyer would be happy simply to get his money back and move on.

Whatever happens, pass the popcorn, its going to be one hell of a fun watch

 

Quick comments on this last post:

1. I really believe the buyer wanted this very car. There are plenty of cars but this was a piece that fits well in the collection. Otherwise why would he go through Bonhams while a traditional client from another house and from time to time buying direct?
So some of the movements we may see of course are for protecting the money, even the mega rich have to protect their wealth, but we may think that those are also steps to ultimately claim clear ownership.

2. Using an experienced agent will make it a little bit more complicated. When dealing with customers, usually English courts make a difference between the sophisticated buyer and the pure individual. A car professional trader is used at checking issues related to titles, this is basis due diligence , specially for expensive cars. Problems may happen, I have specifically in mind a famous 500K sold at auction, possibly still impounded in Germany for ownership issues, but here it was known.

So after several iteration, and a lot of time and legal fees up to House of Lords,,, one of the issues might be how responsibilities might be shared between "seller" whoever he is, or called it consigner, buyer, his agent and the auction house...may not be black and white,,,

 

In reply, I refer you to a prior post:

Thus, the appeal is pending. I say another four to six months. IMHO Ford and Lawson claims will be reinstated and A1001370 will continue.

And I will add that the HOA was NOT a contract, based on new evidence -- it will blow your mind when you see what _______ and _________ did.

Joe

 

Bill can you shed some light on this

On 9th June 2014, before the date of the auction, Judge Nadel gave final judgement on the Swaters v Lawson case A1001340 and appeals C-130604 and C-130627. The judgement was to confirm the opinions of the Ohio Supreme Court of 28th May on the validity of the forum-selection clause and that the jurisdiction now vested in London. Accordingly the Case was cancelled.

If my understanding is correct then Bonhams statement that the "relevant legislation" had been settled was indeed correct at the date of the sale. The other outstanding legislation relating to the dispute between Gardner and Ford does not effect the title.

I do not understand the appeals procedure but it does seem unlikely that an appeal will be successful given the period elapsed and the status of the Court

 

One would be presumptions to assume a legal matter was over until all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. That sometimes takes years as matters proceed to increasingly higher courts.
Lawyers are aware of this and will advise clients to act accordingly.
If you know, are told, or it is likely that an appeal is pending, then you'd be reckless to ignore it.

M

 

In the law biz it is axiomatic that an appealable order does not become final until the time to notice an appeal to the next higher court has run out. Because Judge Nadel's June 9, 2014 judgment of dismissal was actually pending before Ohio's intermediate appellate court as of the June 27 date of the Goodwood auction, the causes of action that he had dismissed had not yet been finally disposed of.

At the same time it is possible for Bonhams to have reasonably believed, on June 27, that the "relevant litigation" had been "settled" as of that date. Members who correctly understand that Wexner has no cause of action for fraud or negligent misrepresentation unless he had no knowledge of the pendency of Ford's appeal can stop reading now. So too can members who have correctly concluded that Wexner/Copley are bound to the provisions in Bonhams' contract with Wexner/Copley, and the provisions of Wexner/Copley's contract with Swaters, that those contracts do not include a warranty that "today . . . all relevant litigation [is] settled."

For the remaining followers of this thread, an argument in support of the proposition, that Bonhams could have reasonably believed, as of June 27, that the "relevant litigation" had been "settled," could begin with the fact that Bonhams is a fictitious entity, and that we can ascribe to Bonhams only such knowledge as its employees have actually acquired, or should reasonably have acquired in the exercise of reasonable care.

Also as a fictitious entity, Bonhams is bound only to the representations of personnel to whom its top executives have given the authority to bind Bonhams with their words.

We will also agree that the term "all relevant litigation is now settled," when uttered by a layperson, has a different meaning than "Judge Nadel's June 9 judgment to dismiss the claims of Swaters' against Lawson, and the claims of Ford/Lawson against Swaters, is now final," when uttered by an attorney.

Immediately prior to the execution of the Heads of Agreement, Swaters was vigorously prosecuting her claims to title against Lawson, and Lawson/Ford were vigorously prosecuting their claims to title against Swaters. These three, and Gardner too (who was not yet a party to the litigation) agreed to settle those claims by signing the HoA.

Ford almost immediately adopted the pretext that Swaters' choice not to communicate directly with the other parties to the HoA put her in material breach of the terms of HoA, such that Ford/Lawson were henceforth excused from performing their agreement to ship the Ohio parts to London. Swaters moved the Hamilton County Court for orders that Ford/Lawson should ship the parts, and an order to dismiss the case. By granting that motion on August 19, 2013, Judge Nagel essentially ruled that the parties to the HoA had indeed *settled* the claims that they had been so vigorously prosecuting the day before they executed the HoA.

In short, as of August 19, 2013, according to the only court ruling in force on that date -- one that had been entered after the Court had heard both sides of the dispute -- it was true that all relevant litigation had been *settled*.

Ford appealed the order of dismissal, and the other provisions ordering him and Lawson to perform their covenants under the HoA. The grounds on which he relied of Ford's appeal did not include the argument that the HoA did not continue to be an enforceable settlement agreement of the parties' claims to title. Quite to the contrary, Ford argued that the HoA's provision, that Swaters should have addressed her motion to the London High Court, was enforceable and had deprived the Ohio courts of any jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising from the execution of the HoA.

In short, all parties continued to agree that the HoA continued to constitute a binding settlement of their claims to title.

It is the law that a trial court judgment is effective and enforceable during the pendency of an appeal of the judgment, unless the appellant moves for an order to stay pending appeal. Ford/Lawson did not seek an order to stay the enforcement of Judge Nadel's judgment during the pendency of their appeal. Nonetheless, they continued to disobey his order to ship the parts. On May 13, 2014, Judge Nadel found them in contempt and ordered them to execute *irrevocable* powers of attorney appointing Bonhams to act for them with respect to #0384. As of May 13, 2014, then, it was the case that the only contested rulings (now in the plural) then in effect continued to find it to be true all relevant litigation had been *settled*.

On May 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals added its own agreement to that proposition, ruling the HoA was indeed a binding *settlement* of the signing parties' claims to title to #0864. Indeed, the Court's opinion found that no party to the appeal had disputed the enforceability against them of the HoA's forum selection clause.

Finally, on June 9, 2014 -- after the case had been remanded to Judge Nadel by the Court of Appeals -- Judge Nadel again in apparent reliance on the proposition that the HoA continued to constitute a settlement of the parties' claims to title, again dismissed all those claims. I think he erred in doing that. While the HoA provide that the parties will voluntarily dismiss their claims to title as alleged in the Swaters v. Lawson case, that duty does not mature until the proceeds of a Bonhams auction has been paid out to them. This has not yet happened.

Ford and Lawson have appealed this second judgment of dismissal, and they should win. At the same time, they have not moved to stay the effects of this second dismissal. Therefore, it continues to be the case that Judge Nadel on three occasions, and the Court of Appeals on one, have ruled that the HoA constitutes a settlement of the parties claims to title to #0384, as alleged by them in the Swaters v. Lawson case.

OK, that's the argument. I expect there to be counterarguments, and I very much expect someone will spot something I've overlooked or some fact I got wrong. In fact, I welcome such corrections and counterarguments. At the same time, I do hesitate to go into depth on the facts and procedural history of this ongoing mess. There's just too much data for a casual observer to be able to go through it all on a *Friday evening* that I should be enjoying with my wife. So I'm not even going to proofread this post. Just take it for what it's worth: the ramblings of some stranger on the Internet.


terms of the HoA granted these motions

 

Don't drag Jim into this !!!
(for the uninitiated, I'm making a weak attempt at a serial number joke based on a typo quoted above).

All kidding aside, Bill, Again, Thank You.
Thank you for generously volunteering your time and estimable legal expertise to allow those of us following along to have a greater understanding of the case and its intricacies as it continues.
Your posts are very much appreciated.

Best Regards,
Dave

 

Very funny and thank you Bill for your opinion

 

First, let me say again this board is lucky to have a lawyer's commentary to help explain some of the dynamics at work as this matter and these cases wind their way through the Court process. Bill recognizes that his analysis is limited to what he knows. Let me add a few points to the analysis.

I agree. Once anyone files an appeal, the litigation is not over. Bonhams' very expensive London lawyers should hire an Ohio attorney (who has no dog in the fight ) to understand these things. I see Bonhams' present London attorneys making rookie mistakes right now because they lack outside Ohio attorney advice.

First, I argue it is not possible for Bonhams to reasonably believe it had authority to auction since two of the three consignors cancelled their authority, in Sept 2013 and the other in Feb of 2014.

I do not know of any Wexner/Copley contract with Swaters. I only know of a Copley contract with Bonhams. I know of a written letter of assurance from Bonhams' top guy to Copley, wrongly and unreasonably assuring that they (Bonhams) could convey title and that there was no ownership litigation. Copley's attorneys even gave Bonhams a reasonable period of extra time to close, and Bonhams could not. There were likely other exchanges between Bonhams and Copley that I do not know of.

True, but the correspondence from my attorneys and from Lawson's attorneys went straight to the top, to directors and to Bonhams attorneys, so we can ascribe the knowledge --- they knew.

I know of an assurance letter from Bonhams' TOP man to Copley.

Lawyers (in-house and out of house) were involved at all times, including a Bonhams lawyer who is also a director of Bonhams Ltd 1793.

That is true (relevant litigation all settled) until the appeal was filed. That order was later reversed as we all now know. Since the Court's order was issued without jurisdiction, it was a void Order since day one, and a party need not obey it, nor can be in contempt of a void order. Based on new facts, the HOA was not a binding contract. Again, Bonhams should hire Ohio counsel with no dog in the fight to understand these things.

That point is incorrect. I argued on appeal several grounds, and the three Judge panel realized that the HOA venue clause prevented trial court enforcement, and they ruled accordingly. Once Ford/Lawson claims are reinstated, and I predict we will win that appeal, in agreement with Bill's analysis, then the issue and new facts will nail one and for all that the HOA is not a contract. The new facts include and are not limited to facts showing fraud and fraud in the inducement to enter the HOA. That will pop up in UK cases too, just not sure when and how.

I did not agree then and do not agree now, and the points are in the record as claims which await reinstatement and as supplementation with new facts showing fraud and fraud in the inducement.

We could not post bond, plus did not want to be liable for damages if we lost the appeal, so we simply protested, knowing that on appeal, if we won, they would have to stop. Well, we won on appeal. Bonhams did not stop and instead doubled down, continued promoting the auction, which I and many others knew to be a sham that could not close.

Kinda. There are new facts that will change the above.

I agree that it was error to dismiss the case without reinstating our claims meaningfully. I agree that the HOA had a condition precedent of final dismissal of case pending distribution of funds. Swaters and Bonhams should hire you on that point.

Agree, we will win, reinstated claims will determine ownership (Swaters loses) and new facts will show fraud and fraud in the inducement (more Swaters loss). Bill, Florence should hire you.

Again, thanks for your input and keeping the level of discourse elevated.

Joe

*

 

Joe,

You going to share the "fraud and inducement of fraud" related to the HOA information?

Jeff