Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2654380, member: 19463&quot;]I have always wondered just what the appropriate action was in this case.&nbsp; I can&#039;t see a &#039;win&#039; with any action.&nbsp; Lets say that I was the first underbidder on those 50 lots and would have won then except for the fake bids.&nbsp; I believe I have the right to expect first refusal on those lots not at the fake hammer price but at what I would have paid had that bidder not participated in the sale or one advance over the third bidder.&nbsp; I have received such contact from one dealer who was careful to make clear that I was not &#039;expected&#039; to buy the lots but would be offered the opportunity under the regrettable circumstances.&nbsp; Of course there is the possibility that the fake bidder was also the third place bidder.&nbsp; That makes it look like he was a shill for the consignor who wanted to drive up the price on his lots but ended up buying them.&nbsp; I trust proper auction houses are on the watch for this sort of thing.&nbsp; The down side here is that a legitimate consignor (not one responsible for the fake bids) may have seen the fake bids and be expecting to be compensated on that basis.&nbsp; That&#039;s why I say there is no certain &#039;win&#039; answer here. Must we have a system where each bidder has to post a bond to be forfeited if we do not fulfill the contract? We do not want that for several reasons not the least of which is that it would really cut back on the number of bidders and cause many lots to sell for less or not sell because many bidders would not choose to participate.&nbsp; I have no answer.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in