Christies sued for $7mil over "fake" Trek props

[phase pistol]

http://www.trektoday.com/news/281207_02.shtml

A seven million dollar lawsuit filed by a Star Trek fan alleges that the "one-of-a-kind" memorabilia that he purchased from Christie's auction house were fakes.
As reported at the NY Daily News, Ted Moustakis is suing both Christie's and CBS, claiming that a visor and a table represented as props from Star Trek: The Next Generation were not authentic. Moustakis now has doubts about a uniform that he purchased that was supposedly worn by Brent Spiner.
Moustakis was told that the poker visor for which Moustakis had paid $6,000 was not one worn by Spiner as had been advertised, by Spiner himself while attending a Las Vegas Star Trek convention. As reported by the New York Post, when approached by Moustakis to sign the visor, Spiner said, "That's not my visor. You bought that at Christie's." Spiner went on to explain that he had sold the authentic visor himself, in an eBay auction. "He said he had told Christie's not to sell it," said Moustakis.
Further research by Moustakis revealed that CBS had been selling numerous versions of Spiner's supposed "one-of-a-kind" uniform and the table had differences from the one that had appeared in the show.
Moustakis is seeking a refund as well as punitive damages.
To read the articles, head to the links located here and here.

 

[defstartrooper]

I say good luck to him, but it does annoy me a bit when people try to make things like this into a moneyspinner $7m doesn't represent his costs anywhere close and ok fair enough he may deserve some damages for being ripped off but $7m ? i think someone reversed the polarity of his positronic matrix :unsure

 

[jdebord]

I posted an article about this on my blog this morning:

LINK

The visor happened to be one of the only pieces I placed a bid on, so I remember from watching the live feed that the description was updated to note that it was not the visor filmed for the scene (I don't recall the specifics of the auctioneer's comments, but something to that effect).

More details in my article.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[SurferGeek]

I am SO sick of the overly litigious society that we live in nowadays!! :angry:

It was likely a honest mistake on the part of people involved with the auction. As was noted, it's possible it was a back up piece and as such looks identical, how would they know for sure unless they found Spiner's DNA in the sweat band. The most the guy is out is the $12,000 initially invested.

People are just too quick and eager to instigate a lawsuit and bloodthirsty lawyers are a dime-a-dozen. Truly sickens me...

I'm not saying the guy shouldn't be able to raise the BS flag and sue for the amount he's out as well as legal fees and such but 7 Million!! That's someone (or their lawyer) just looking to milk the cow for what it's worth. What kind of pain and suffering or degradation of character or other loss can he legitimately claim?

 

[PHArchivist]

Hmmmm....

 

[phase pistol]

I don't really understand the point of $7 million either, but perhaps it is intended to punish Christies and CBS, not simply to reimburse the bidder.

The entire 3-day auction cleared $7.1 million for Christies, according to
news reports.

Leaving aside the issue of the dollar amount, I think it's a positive thing to take steps to hold the auction house - and the seller! - accountable in these auction situations. We, the collectors on all these prop boards, seem to have a laissez-faire, "bidder beware" attitude, and personally I'd rather see more (or at least any) protection for the buyer of these things.

I mean, as it is now, all the cards are held by the seller. There's no penalty for fraud, if some sucker falls for it and actually bids on your auction. I'd like to see that ended.

- k

 

[docholl]

This guy does not have a chance in hell of winning. The only people that are going to make any money are the Lawyers.

 

[Treadwell]

Keep in mind that seldom to litigants receive the amount they sue for. It's just to get them to take it seriously. I'm sure it'll be whittled down.

 

[Mr. Nagata]

Man, that guy is milking this thing. "I was so proud to have these items," then he goes on to say he was "humiliated." I can hear the violins playing now. Definitely deserves 7 million.

 

[Treadwell]

I agree that anything above and beyond his actual damages (auction price, fees, etc) is a bit much, I do feel it is important to send the message to these auction houses that they need to be more vigilant about authentication. These items might not be Picassos, but a professional house should treat them no differently. With a name like Christies comes an air of legitimacy and prestige, and they need to live up to that with each and every sale.

 

[jdebord]

I mean, as it is now, all the cards are held by the seller. There's no penalty for fraud, if some sucker falls for it and actually bids on your auction. I'd like to see that ended.

I agree with you in the abstract. But given the information I have on this specific case, I don't believe this is the case to pursue.

I am very pro-consumer/pro-collector, but in this case, unless it can be proven that the visor was not "Original" (see my definition at the bottom of this post), I side with Christies in this case. If you read my blog, you will see I challenge and questions items offered for sale publicly with regularity. If the collector did not understand the ramifications of the description modification, I'd say refund him for that one item. But $7 million dollars?

I would be interested in seeing the auction transcripts/video to review exactly what the auctioneer said to modify the description for the visor before accepting bids.

Jason

_________________________

What is "Original"?

excerpt:

An “original” piece is something:
1) made by or acquired by the production,
2) during the production, and
3) used or intended to be used during the production.
All three of these traits would have to be true to be “original”.

 

[patsmear]

Especially if there is truth in the fact that they were told before the auction started, that they could be fakes! If there is any doubt , they need to pull the item and try to verify it from another source.

I do believe he should get his money back, and I also believe that Christie's should go after the seller.

Pat

 

[jdebord]

The items offered for sale came direct from the CBS & Paramount Studios archives. Mike and Denise Okuda cataloged the items for the sale event. Per the Official Press Release, the items were "never-before-released".

Not filmed, or seen on screen, does not mean the item is inauthentic or not "Original".

Jason

 

[Noeland]

You know what, if a person feels they have been ripped off, otherwise mistreated, or sold something inappropriately or deceptively, they have EVERY DAMN RIGHT to file suit. Even if he is making a mistake, he has the right to file suit and work it out in court if he wants to.

It makes me laugh because we jump all over people on these boards, even for defending themselves legally. I mean come on. If we found out that the guy was suing a recaster, man, we'd be calling for someone to be burned at the stake!

My point is, what if this was YOU? What would you do if you had purchased these items, and Brent Spiner said those things to you, in public, inside a convention?

Any of us would be FURIOUS.

 

[defstartrooper]

I'm sure like every other big or even small auction house have themselves well and truly covered in their terms of sale agreement.

Caveat emptor -buyer beware.

In other words as long as to the best of their knowledge at the time of sale everything is as in the description they are not liable.

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

Bottom line here is he didnt pay attention to the auction sheet nor did he pay attention to the auctioneer description.He has no grounds for suit against Christies.If the piece were not authentic or had been mis-described he would have every right to take them to court for reimbursement but that is not the case here.Just because it isnt what he thought it was because he didnt take care when bidding and pay attention to what it was does not mean Christies owe him seven million.And where does the figure of seven million punitive damages on a $6,000 item come from?Ridiculous.
As has been said-caveat emptor.

 

[Zombie_61]

Suing Christies for the amount he paid for the visor wouldn't have made headlines; suing them for $7 million did. I think this is more about publicly calling attention to the fact that a reputable auction house may have misrepresented an item they sold than actually collecting that much money from them. If it is determined that he does have a valid complaint I could see him being awarded the amount he paid for the visor (on the condition that he return the visor to them) plus legal costs, but not $7 million.

Then again, stupider things have been known to happen... :unsure

 

[Hitogiri]

I bet they are very well covered indeed. I doubt the guy will see a penny.

 

[Melissa]

According to one of the articles, he says he's since discovered that the pool table is also "a fake" (maybe it just wasn't screen used), and he's questioning the authenticity of other purchases he made too.

While I think 7 million is just a teeny bit high he could try to make a case for the value of these items increasing over time, as well as the value of all the items together as a set vs their individual values. He could also try to prove (though I think it'd be difficult!) that as a collector, his own reputation was damaged in some way by the lack of authenticity of the items and that this has harmed him financially in some way. He might also try to get money for the interest he's lost on the money he paid to Christies... there are ways to bend this to justify recouping more than the amount he paid. -Though I don't know if those costs would equal 7 million!

As for Christies selling something they believed to be legit, he's not saying they didn't know better but should have. He's saying that he believes they KNEW the item was "a fake" and knowingly defrauded him. This isn't just a case about a company that won't refund an unhappy customer his money. He has made this into a case about fraud. While I don't know the legal details pertaining to fraud, the fact that this is a fraud case, plus the amount of money that was involved, might *legally* entitle him to more than the amount of money he lost, just by virtue of the nature of the crime. Whether or not a crime was actually committed will of course be up to a jury to decide.

I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[docholl]

None of the items sold by Christies were "fakes"! And that buyer was a "fan" not a "collector". Perhaps if he had done his homework and paid attention to what he was spending his money on, we would not have this issue now.