Collector of US Coins Hugh Stiel vs Heritage Auction

I'm voting yes because it seems you'd like to go that route and you have disposable income to do so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For those confused by this thread, join the club.... This guy has been very vague throughout the past several years (maybe because he has to be, maybe because he wants to be). I've never really gotten a clear story as to what's going on. However, for the past several years he's been suing Heritage and they've been going back and forth.

For the legalese, see his petition here: https://courtsportal.dallascounty.o...8UbBNnnEMg33lRSXMUjnLuMfLaoibXsONFcLbKwem7go1

Relevant points from that link:

- he claims the Heritage owes him over a million dollars
- he claims that Heritage (the defendant)

and that

He's suing them for breach of contract, keeping a large amount of money that he's supposed to be owed, and negligent misrepresentation.

I'd like to know what the real story is - but since it keeps going back and forth in the courts its apparently not as clear-cut as this guy would like you to believe.

 

thanks @physics-fan3.14 for the summary. Very confusing overall.

 

So he sent heritage high dollar items. Instead of selling them heritage held on to the items (publicity) for larger bids causing Stiel monies?

 

But apparently no claims against Heritage were actually filed with the court so they dismissed his claim against Heritage with prejudice meaning he can't refile against Heritage. It also seems to say that he failed to file claims against the other defendants so those cases were dismissed without prejudice so he can amend his suit and refile against them. So basically start over.

53 posts to go

 

I think we need DNA forensics with this one and a trip to Maury Povich. Who is my daddy?

 

No idea what's going on but I miss seeing Hugh's beautiful pickups around here

 

He definitely posted some nice coins.
Wish we could see some more.

 

After reading this post from physics-fan, I think I have an idea of what this suit could be about.

From personal experience, I know that auctioneers can manipulate the auction process, right in front of the auction bidders, and actually "give" an auctioned item to the person they want to have it, at a price the auctioneer wants to give it away for.

Perhaps Hugh was victimized in such a manner.

I know it's unethical.
I know it's probably illegal.
I know it's against the rules that govern auctioneering, but it happens, and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that it occurred.

As I said, I'm only supposing.

 

It would seem if you could gather other people who have had the same thing happen a class action suit may be better but I don't quite follow what is going on or have a clue about lawsuits therefore, I vote

C. Spend lawsuit money on more beautiful coins instead.

 

None of us know all of the facts nor have we seen the evidence. It is odd that you would ask a group of (largely) non-lawyer hobbyists for legal advice.

 

My understanding is that since Heritage can bid up their own auctions and win their own material to be resold at a later date, that's what they did. The auctions didn't go as high as Hugh wanted and Heritage took possession of the coins, which they unfold turn sold for higher prices at a later date. Thus netting them more money that Hugh feels he is entitled to.

 

Isn't that part of the no reserve game? Sometimes you win sometimes you lose...

 

If that is the issue then he has no case IMHO. The auction company's bid actually pushed the price up, not down. There was no harm and no breach of contract.

 

It is not just the lawyers - when you end up on the receiving end of one of these type lawsuits you learn some things as they go alone. Each claim and counter claim gets so long to respond. I think in Ky it is like 3 weeks - when you first get served you have like 20 days to find a lawyer and respond. Then like motions to dismiss get a court date - not to hear the motion, but to set a date where the judge hears the actual motion. Then you do like depositions which get scheduled, more motions, etc. And no lawyers are not always guaranteed money. Some doing the suing only get money if they win the case. Not really sure I understand how sometimes one party or the other can recoup the lawyer costs. So it can be just a long protracted process to get through our court systems.

Now I voted no just based off what I understand - but if your lawyer is any good I would follow their advice.

 

There is a conflict of interest here:

1. An auction company gets a consignment to sell a high dollar coin.
2. An auction company is aware of a likely strong buyer for the coin.
3. They auction the coin, but do not reach out to that buyer to advertise the auction. Potentially they do not publicize the sale as extensively to hopefully keep the bidding low (doing the bare minimum as per their contractual obligation).
4. The auction company ends up buying the coin for themselves.
5. The auction company reaches out to the strong buyer and sells it at a profit.

Sure, in that scenario the company's bid did push the price up, but through their other actions (or in this case, inactions) prior to the sale, they suppressed the overall bidding. The end result is that the coin hammers lower than its potential. They probably can do the above while meeting their contractual obligations, but they are not acting in good faith as the agent of the seller due to the conflict of interest.

Perhaps they do not do this, however, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest will always exist when an auction house can bid on coins they are the seller's agent for. The only way to avoid this is to not bid on coins themselves, or to spinoff their buying operation into another company. That way if their buying operation has knowledge that can be used to make money on a purchase, there is no conflict of interest when the auction house does not use that knowledge to make money instead for the seller.

 

Not only is it not a breach of contract, it is expressly written *into* the contract that Heritage can bid on any lot it wants to. These are the terms and conditions that everyone must agree to when they do business with Heritage (unless you negotiate another contract beforehand, which is highly unlikely):

 

If it is disclosed and the client knowingly makes a waiver, then an appearance of a conflict of interest or even an actual conflict of interest are permissible in most contexts so as long as there is no statutory authority making it illegal. You are charged with knowing and reading what you sign. Again, there could be a lot more to this story - I don't know. I simply do not care to read through all of the pleadings, and I have never seen the OP give a straightforward answer. Absent some statute that prohibits Heritage's conduct, if this is what Heritage did, it should easily win, and I am surprised this wasn't tossed long ago.

 

I wish Stiehl would give us the 5-10 minute synopsis of the alleged facts, the putative problem with Heritage, and a copy of the consignment contract.

 

I voted No because the OP's posts are gibberish.