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

[Jumpin Jax]

None of the items sold by Christies were "fakes"!

You mean like "Mark Hamill's stormtrooper helmet"?:lol
This isn't the first time authenticity has come into question where Christie's is involved. And while the money might be overkill, I don't see flaw in calling these people onto the carpet. Given Profiles in History's desire to fill collections with fairy tales, it's high time a few pop-culture items (and sellers)were given a second look.

 

[Melissa]

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.

I'm not saying any of what he's said is true. I'm saying that's what he's claiming and that's what he and/or Christies will have to prove or disprove to a jury. And you're correct about his referring to himself as a fan. It's his lawyer that mentions collectors being defrauded.

 

[micdavis]

Sorry, I think you're an idiot to start with if you pay $6000 for a visor. I don't care who freakin' wore.

I'd rather not see our court time spent on this stupidity.

 

[defstartrooper]

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.

If Christies were guilty of fraud then that is a criminal matter, i see no mention of criminal proceedings only this civil action.
Auction houses are very careful about how they present an item unless they have 100% proof of authenticity.
For instance they may well describe something as made for " X show/movie " this does not mean it was used just made by the production company for the show/movie.
Or as worn by " X in X show " meaning it is identical to the one worn but doesn't mean it is the one worn.

This guys done himself no favours not only will he most likely not win a penny he will have to foot legal costs and the items he now owns are next to worthless because he has outed them :wacko

 

[ghostryder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_en_tv/star_trek_auction;_ylt=AuUxeVacmUxARtvvRYJzd2FxFb8C

 

[micdavis]

Anybody with the Christie's Auction book?

Look up the descriptions and see what those items say. It is all in the wording for sure.

Planet Hollywood played that game too.

 

[Melissa]

If Christies were guilty of fraud then that is a criminal matter, i see no mention of criminal proceedings only this civil action.

I'm only going by what's stated in the articles, and the articles quote the lawyer as making statements about fraud and negligent misrepresentation with regard to the lawsuit.

In his lawsuit, Moustakis claims that Christie's and CBS Paramount Television knew that some of the Star Trek items he purchased were not authentic.
http://www.nbc10.com/entertainment/14938770/detail.html

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Moustakis says Christie's was aware the goods it received from CBS Paramount were fakes but sold them anyway.
"They were given strong reason to believe certain items were not authentic," said the restaurateur's lawyer, Richard Borzouye.
"This was done knowingly."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12282007/news/regionalnews/trekkie_vs__christies_119335.htm

The lawsuit, filed in state court in Manhattan, demands millions of dollars in punitive damages and a refund for the visor and two other items Moustakis bought at the 2006 auction...

"They defrauded collectors, fans, honest people," said Moustakis' lawyer, Richard Borzouye. "It's negligent misrepresentation."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijAIvmlBQYCXfdQLsuOBlWwhcQ_gD8TQOV980​

Although the last quote mentions negligent misrepresentation, the rest of the lawyer's quotes support fraud, not simple negligent misrepresentation. Punitive damages are also rarely awarded in cases of negligent misrepresentation but are often awarded in fraud.

As to what's actually in the lawsuit, I have no idea. Again, I'm just going by what's in the articles, and articles are only as accurate as the reporters who wrote them.

 

[defstartrooper]

SALE: 40 Years of Star Trek: The Collection ESTIMATE: $400 - $600
PRICE: $5000 ($6000 with premium)
DATA'S POKER VISOR
[partial] A wire and dichroic-finish plastic visor -- made for Brent Spiner as Data during poker game scenes in Star Trek: The Next Generation including "Descent, Part ...

There we have it " MADE FOR " thats the Christies description.

http://startrekpropcollector.com/trekauctions/data/pages/christies/page22.html#1778-0633

 

[patsmear]

I just hopped into my time machine and found this:

Here is a transcript and pic from the trial.

Plantiff's lawyer - Good morning Judge and ladies and Gentleman of the jury. Today we plan to prove without the shadow of a doubt, that Christie's auction house misrepresented a product in their Star Trek auctions. They say that a visor, that my client paid $6000 for in good faith, was worn by the Actor Brent Spiner who plays DATA in Star Trek, When in fact it was never ever worn by Mr. Spiner ,EVER!!!!!

Judge - Christie's defendant, is this true?

Christies defendant -

Judge - CASE DISMISSED!




Pat

 

[exoray]

Well for the people that believe he doesn't stand a chance remember this is Civil court... Not criminal the burden of proof is way lower...

Is it likely they were aware of questions of authenticity, prior to selling the item?

If the answer is YES then he very well can win in Civil court, as that tips the scales in winning favor... The damages amount will of course be adjusted if he wins, it's just the way the game is played...

And since he claims to have first had testimony that they were in fact informed of questions in regards to it's authenticity he has a pretty solid case to pursue...

But, like almost all bigger Civil cases in the US chances are very good it will be quietly settled out of court to avoid headlines, with the inclusion of nondisclosure agreements...

 

[defstartrooper]

True enough but you have to take into account that these places put all kinds of stuff in their terms of sale agreements to cover themselves they aren't stupid or they would be fighting lawsuits every day.

Can he show that Brent Spiner told Christies the item was not worn by him in the show ? possibly.

Does that prove the item they sold was sold as an item that was worn by Brent Spiner in the show ? no.

The description clearly says made for not worn by that's Christies backside covered.
As for CBS well it's quite possible and usual for secondry props and backups or prototypes to be produced nothing strange in that in any of those cases the statement " made for " stands true.

 

[exoray]

Does that prove

Civil court doesn't need proof...

Civil court weighs in the balance of probabilities and rules in favor of the more probable one...

Remember the suit is not only about the items authenticity, it a fraud and misrepresentation claim as well...

If Christies was informed of the authenticity issue as he has been told, and he can show then simply neglected the claims or wrote it off without further investigation, he can win on fraud and misrepresentation claims regardless of the fine print in the auction...

It's Civil court, it's not all about the wording or dotted "i" that is reserved for Criminal cases, Civil is about convincing a jury that one sides argument is more probable then the other...

To ensure the authenticity and accuracy of the auction, Christie's enlisted the help of Denise and Michael Okuda to catalog every one of the 1000 lots, including verifying the onscreen use by referencing DVDs to see where the prop, costume, or model was used. The process and the auction itself where chronicled by The History Channel in both a live internet stream of the auction, and the documentary Star Trek: Beyond the Final Frontier as part of their celebration of Trek's 40th anniversary.

If his items were authenticated as this article claims his case is even stronger... The whole picture will be looked at by the jury, not simply the fine print, if Christies at any time represented or portrayed the items used onscreen as the above article claims then that adds to the guys case...

 

[GeorgeL]

If they knew they were selling a fake they deserve to pay out 7 mil by the guy who called thier bluff. Who the @#$$ do they think they are anyway?

I didnt read all 4 pages of this thread but thats how I feel at this time.

 

[Apollo]

Thats the perils of buying Screen-Used pieces.

 

[bigbaddaddyvader]

See this is the thing.It was not described as screen-used.Brent Spiner may well have sold a screen-used one but to believe only one was made or used over a six year period is ridiculous.The piece was listed as made for the program and was stated as such at the auction.Just because the piece was not used does not make in inauthentic.It makes it a production original which is what it was sold as and this buyer did not pay attention.This does not constitute either fraud or negligent misrepresentation on the part of Christies.It constitutes bad buying practices on the part of the bidder.

 

[Lost in Trek]

As I see it the problem was not with the auction listing, Christies, CBS or anyone asociated with the auction. The problem was with the large number of people who showed up to bid on these items with no experience in the entertainmant prop field. Those who actively collect these items know that "made for production" is different from "screen used".

The fact that thousands of dollars was paid for these items was a sure indication that the buyers had no idea of their true value in the prop collecting community. Nor did they fully understand what they were bidding on.

That's not the auction house's problem.

 

[defstartrooper]

Civil court weighs in the balance of probabilities and rules in favor of the more probable one...

Remember the suit is not only about the items authenticity, it a fraud and misrepresentation claim as well...

My point is there is no probability to weigh up if the item sold is as per the description " Made for Brent Spiner " they made no other claims than that in the description.
So what is there to weigh up ?

Auction houses use clever descriptions like this all the time not just movie props but with art and antiques everything, it's nothing out of the ordinary it's standard practice.
If a buyer is incompetent enough to not read the description properly then that's his problem it's not illegal or fraudulant in any way.

If this guy has any hope of winning anything then he has to show that the description of the item sold is wrong.

 

[Entropy]

While the press is certainly single-sidedly hyping this as the little guy striking back at the big bad auction company, it really appears to me that this was just a fan not understanding what he was buying. The articles are freely throwing around the words "fake" and "phony," but these terms do not apply at all. These were legitimate production pieces and were not presented in any kind of fraudulent manner. The "screen worn" portion of the visor's description was amended by a salesroom announcement, both verbally and in writing prior to the start of the bidding. The plaintiff was physically at the auction when this occurred.

Unless other evidence comes to light, I honestly think the plaintiff just doesn't have a good understanding of the prop industry and the fact that with only very rare exceptions, it is typical to have multiples of a particular prop. This isn't even a case of "buyer beware." It's a case of "buyer be educated."

I, for one, hope that Christie's doesn't simply cave to the bad press and offer a settlement. At best (and I think even this would be a courtesy at the descretion of the auction house), the plaintiff should receive no more than the original sale price of the visor. Seeking $7 million is a ludicrous scare tactic and is the only thing that smells like "fraud" in my opinion.

 

[docholl]

While the press is certainly single-sidedly hyping this as the little guy striking back at the big bad auction company, it really appears to me that this was just a fan not understanding what he was buying. The articles are freely throwing around the words "fake" and "phony," but these terms do not apply at all. These were legitimate production pieces and were not presented in any kind of fraudulent manner. The "screen worn" portion of the visor's description was amended by a salesroom announcement, both verbally and in writing prior to the start of the bidding. The plaintiff was physically at the auction when this occurred.

Unless other evidence comes to light, I honestly think the plaintiff just doesn't have a good understanding of the prop industry and the fact that with only very rare exceptions, it is typical to have multiples of a particular prop. This isn't even a case of "buyer beware." It's a case of "buyer be educated."

I, for one, hope that Christie's doesn't simply cave to the bad press and offer a settlement. At best (and I think even this would be a courtesy at the descretion of the auction house), the plaintiff should receive no more than the original sale price of the visor. Seeking $7 million is a ludicrous scare tactic and is the only thing that smells like "fraud" in my opinion.

WELL SAID!

 

[KingNothing]

You know people think that actors know everything about the props. I can tell you while sometimes it's true, most of the times it's not. Lots (and I mean lots) of actors don't care what the prop is made of or how it was made, what size etc... So when an actor says it was the only one or something like that, that doesn't mean it's the friggin truth. Talk to the prop master or art director, or wardrobe for clothing. Someone who actually knows how many were made, and what they were sized as they said. If you're dealing with a big budget production you're going to have lots of seconds, thirds, fourths etc. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news... but a lot of the "screen used" items were just backups and seconds. Although they are made the exact same way to the same specs, some don't even appear on screen. That's why I stopped buying screen used peices unless I know exactly where they came from and if they had any real screen time. Just because it matches up on screen doesn't mean that it was the exact one. Sometime it does though. Just like everyone has been saying buyer beware.
And just take everything with a grain of salt. If an actor said "yeah the box had 3 lights on the right", then it might just have had that! But don't take it as gospel. Talk to the guys who built it, and whatnot. Especially for films from years ago...