Purchase from an auction house

IDProtected

Again, huge thanks to Hollydays, Pinkshoes and Unholy Angel and a big fat raspberry to StumpyPumpy.

The photograph from the auction catalogue and the photograph taken by my valuer have been proved to show the same items and the auction house has (at last!) agreed to refund the fee paid for both rings, including the auction house commission.

As Grumpy Stumpy Pumpy says, they simply cannot describe an item as being, for example, gold unless they are sure that it is so; it must be described as yellow metal. Similarly, synthetic spinels cannot be described as “Tourmaline” nor as” Diamonds”, and an item cannot be described as “Victorian” if it was made as late as 1973.

It has taken quite a bit of correspondence, but I am delighted to say that, with due thanks as above, I have proved a point. I hope this will also save other people being hoodwinked by this auctioneer again in the future. I the meantime, I am looking for another local auction to attend!

Thanks again if you’ve helped me and raspberries to those who felt it their place to accuse me of fraud.

StumpyPumpy

I am genuinely glad you have got your money back - but please acknowledge I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF FRAUD as you seem to be suggesting. I actually stated in an opening phrase in one of my posts:

I'm not accusing you of anything, but can you not see this is the sort of defence the vendor could come up with, that you have no way of proving otherwise?

The truth is, I have no idea whether a random poster on an internet forum is a fraudster or not. My only comment on your activities was to point out that the very actions you were describing could be used by people to deliberately defraud vendors. As you were proposing taking legal action, I simply pointed out that one of the reasons that any court would (and do) have to consider is that people do try to defraud auction rooms, steal lots and behave in other ways not in accordance with the law and with no substantiating evidence to point otherwise you would get nowhere with a legal challenge which involved your word (aka "Yes, I had them altered, but I didn't do nothing naughty to them, honest your honour") against theirs (aka "We believe they were as we described when they were sold, we cannot be held responsible for their condition after they had been altered")

Have the Auction House admitted any liability or wrongdoing or have they recompensed you as a gesture of goodwill? My guess is goodwill, because you can absolutely have an item hallmarked for 1973 that was made in the Victorian era as I explained in an earlier post and I would expect an Auction House would have a rudimentary knowledge of the assay system in the UK sufficient to know that the mark is not a date of manufacture and should never be considered as such.

You have managed to bluster your way to a favourable solution - well done. I mean it, it isn't nice to have bought something that wasn't as you expected; but grumpy or not, I stand by my view that if you had done as you had proposed and taken this to court with the evidence you supplied here, you would have not have won the case.

SP

unholyangel

StumpyPumpy wrote: »

I am genuinely glad you have got your money back - but please acknowledge I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF FRAUD as you seem to be suggesting. I actually stated in an opening phrase in one of my posts:The truth is, I have no idea whether a random poster on an internet forum is a fraudster or not. My only comment on your activities was to point out that the very actions you were describing could be used by people to deliberately defraud vendors. As you were proposing taking legal action, I simply pointed out that one of the reasons that any court would (and do) have to consider is that people do try to defraud auction rooms, steal lots and behave in other ways not in accordance with the law and with no substantiating evidence to point otherwise you would get nowhere with a legal challenge which involved your word (aka "Yes, I had them altered, but I didn't do nothing naughty to them, honest your honour") against theirs (aka "We believe they were as we described when they were sold, we cannot be held responsible for their condition after they had been altered")

Have the Auction House admitted any liability or wrongdoing or have they recompensed you as a gesture of goodwill? My guess is goodwill, because you can absolutely have an item hallmarked for 1973 that was made in the Victorian era as I explained in an earlier post and I would expect an Auction House would have a rudimentary knowledge of the assay system in the UK sufficient to know that the mark is not a date of manufacture and should never be considered as such.

You have managed to bluster your way to a favourable solution - well done. I mean it, it isn't nice to have bought something that wasn't as you expected; but grumpy or not, I stand by my view that if you had done as you had proposed and taken this to court with the evidence you supplied here, you would have not have won the case.

SP

They would be expected to provide some sort of proof if they wanted their allegations of fraud taken seriously. Small claims goes on balance of probability. A letter from the company that valued the items dated not long before the OP contacted the auction house would go some way to proving - on the balance of probability - that OP was not trying to defraud the AH. Small claims have to decide things on a he said/she said basis regularly - albeit they don't always get it right.