• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

message from Romain SOMEONE IS SELLING MY ART ON CAF !!
1 1

118 posts in this topic

Just now, Unca Ben said:

 

If the questionable business practices happened a few years ago and he has modified his behavior since then, I am not sure if there's a problem.
Unless Visar has ripped off someone (sold a page and not sent it - and I don't think that has happened) then I will afford him the benefit of the doubt and will refrain from assuming dishonest or malicious intentions.
I would sell to him again. 

He's just got a different account of those sales, and his actions, than the original poster and a subsequent poster have stated. 

He hasn't mentioned "modifying" his behavior as he's mostly given an alternative account of when he owned the artwork, when he sold it, etc. So he's not stated he did business one way then and another way since, he's basically denied what they've alleged.

We don't have answers to follow up questions yet that might illuminate the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it take to get me out of this discussion (besides my own apparent lack of common sense)?

As you know, law is complicated: contracts law alone runs the gamut from commercial and consumer issues, different customs and practices in different trades, UCC and sale of services law, variations by State, equity jurisprudence and conflicts between jurisdictions. My original point has long since been mangled by lawyering: it's a bad business practice (my phrase) to try and sell something before you have it in your possession, particularly if still posted somewhere else, because it will off your customer base (or at least part of it), regardless whether someone has a legal right to sue or not. That was addressed to the mix in some earlier comments which didn't seem to distinguish what can sometimes be two very different "wrongs". Getting into the details of issues of law really clouded this up. My bad.

For what I hope is the last time, I just want to point out one thing, this comment:

15 hours ago, Ironmandrd said:

At most, there is an implicit promise by the person listing an item that he/she has access to the goods in question and can sell them. Dealers regularly sell things they do not own, nor hold as a bailment" but he then veers into "Briefly, no, a seller has no obligation to disclose whether he owns a piece of art under any theory in the absence of special circumstances."

Sorry, @Rick2you2, no, to my recollection, you have that backwards.  The special cases are where you may have no obligation. The salient point you are missing is that these are unique items.  Those other cases are special situations for, for example, non-unique commercial goods and merchants.

No, I don't have it backwards. If you plug in "unique item" into what I wrote you get the same answer. If there is a unique piece, like art, then the person listing the item is implicitly saying that he/she had access to the goods and can sell them, not that he/she owns them. The fact that the access is someone generally listing them elsewhere should not change that result--unless the potential seller knows (or should know) he/she would not be able to get the item and still continues to offer it for sale. That would be some evidence of fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, comix4fun said:

I thought I was clear that something can be fraudulent (fraud in the inducement is using a deceitful premise to induce another party to act) without being something that can be recovered on in court. They are distinct elements each to their own. Actions and violations exist entirely independent of enumerated remedies for collection of damages.

For anyone who cares, this statement is wrong (among others). Here is something I grabbed off the internet from https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud:

"In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002)."

***

The ninth and final common law fraud element is proof of the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. “It is of the very essence of an action of fraud and deceit that the same shall be accompanied by damage, and neither damnum absque injuria nor injuria absque damnum by themselves constitute a good cause of action.” George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So. 2d 910, 912, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15920, at *5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (quoting Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 802, 128 So. 408, 410 (1930)); Cocchiara, 353 Or. at 299 (“Most notably, a plaintiff will have to prove damages to bring a successful [fraud] claim.”); ...

***

In the common law fraud context, “to be actionable the alleged misrepresentation must not only have induced the recipient’s reliance, but must also have caused the recipient’s loss.” Clayton v. Heartland Res., Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 884, 899, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143996, at *41 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (quoting Flegles, Inc. v. Truserv Corp., 289 S.W.3d 544, 553, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 23, at *18 (2009)). Importantly, the term “cause” means “legal or proximate cause, which consists of a finding of causation in fact.” Id. (quoting Flegles, Inc., supra);...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

For anyone who cares, this statement is wrong (among others). Here is something I grabbed off the internet from https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud:

"In the United States, common law generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002)."

***

The ninth and final common law fraud element is proof of the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. “It is of the very essence of an action of fraud and deceit that the same shall be accompanied by damage, and neither damnum absque injuria nor injuria absque damnum by themselves constitute a good cause of action.” George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So. 2d 910, 912, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15920, at *5 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) (quoting Stokes v. Victory Land Co., 99 Fla. 795, 802, 128 So. 408, 410 (1930)); Cocchiara, 353 Or. at 299 (“Most notably, a plaintiff will have to prove damages to bring a successful [fraud] claim.”); ...

***

In the common law fraud context, “to be actionable the alleged misrepresentation must not only have induced the recipient’s reliance, but must also have caused the recipient’s loss.” Clayton v. Heartland Res., Inc., 754 F. Supp. 2d 884, 899, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143996, at *41 (W.D. Ky. 2010) (quoting Flegles, Inc. v. Truserv Corp., 289 S.W.3d 544, 553, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 23, at *18 (2009)). Importantly, the term “cause” means “legal or proximate cause, which consists of a finding of causation in fact.” Id. (quoting Flegles, Inc., supra);...

 

 

 

Well, you've googled something...that ends the debate....  

I've stated this several ways now so I am not sure if it's intentionally obstinate behavior or some fault of reading comprehension that you've failed to grasp the billboard-sized points made that there's a difference between fraudulent activity and being able to recover for fraud in court. And that fraudulent statements exist and occur regardless of ability or lack off ability to gain court remedy. No one with a law degree would ever make claim that something IS or ISN'T actionable and recoverable fraud without examining the individual facts of the individual case and making a judgement based solely on the unique properties of that case in that jurisdiction at that time. That's why the lawyers in this thread aren't speaking to legal technicalities, checklists, or (*swoon*) common law. 

Nothing you posted demonstrated that anything I wrote was incorrect, not even in the slightest. I suggest rereading my post more carefully, or perhaps fully, or perhaps at all.

I'll just say it a few different ways:

Morality exists, in full, regardless of infinite google searches seeking to limit its application and presence to only court-based claims.

Deception, deceit, fraudulent statements, lying and falsehoods can and do occur regardless of whether parties may or may not obtain redress for them in a formal setting.

This is the distinction that I (and others) have made about a dozen times, in this thread, which you seem immune to absorbing or, for some reason, seem intent on deflecting back to court remedy standards. 

 

And you still haven't answered my question about your careful parsing out of statements regarding ownership or possession of an item that are untrue, or statements of agency or empowerment to sell on behalf of the owner which are also not true. I tried to use it as a bridge of common ground that we might have been able to both walk upon, but you seem unwilling to do anything but exculpate with, frankly, irrelevant commentary seeking to distinguish the immoral from the actionable. 

Lies regarding both agency and ownership have been perpetrated against myself and others in this hobby, by various parties, and more than once. You've spoken to "silence" on these matters (agency, ownership, possession) by the seller, but the discussion also includes implicit and explicit representations by sellers to potential buyers that are untrue. Surely you don't believe that false claims in the midst of commerce inducing buyers to commit and transact are simply 'bad practices' and nothing more, right?  I am trying to bridge the perceived gap here to something reasonable and patently clear that everyone can agree upon. 

Edited by comix4fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I am trying to bridge the perceived gap here to something reasonable and patently clear that everyone can agree upon. 

Does the Venn of "everyone" include me? Because...N O...as to agreement.

This characterization of events in this thread isn't even agreed to by "everyone" -

27 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Surely you don't believe that false claims in the midst of commerce inducing buyers to commit and transact are simply 'bad practices' and nothing more, right?

Can't get us to the conclusion if an important premise (false claims, leading to inducing) is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rick2you2 said:

What does it take to get me out of this discussion (besides my own apparent lack of common sense)?

As you know, law is complicated: contracts law alone runs the gamut from commercial and consumer issues, different customs and practices in different trades, UCC and sale of services law, variations by State, equity jurisprudence and conflicts between jurisdictions. My original point has long since been mangled by lawyering: it's a bad business practice (my phrase) to try and sell something before you have it in your possession, particularly if still posted somewhere else, because it will off your customer base (or at least part of it), regardless whether someone has a legal right to sue or not. That was addressed to the mix in some earlier comments which didn't seem to distinguish what can sometimes be two very different "wrongs". Getting into the details of issues of law really clouded this up. My bad.

For what I hope is the last time, I just want to point out one thing, this comment:

No, I don't have it backwards. If you plug in "unique item" into what I wrote you get the same answer. If there is a unique piece, like art, then the person listing the item is implicitly saying that he/she had access to the goods and can sell them, not that he/she owns them. The fact that the access is someone generally listing them elsewhere should not change that result--unless the potential seller knows (or should know) he/she would not be able to get the item and still continues to offer it for sale. That would be some evidence of fraud.

Sorry--unconvinced.  I literally have never heard of an "implied right to access" - the only "access" I've ever seen in matters like this relate to circumstances where its reasonable that a seller may not have possession of the items and may have to obtain them from a third party (with whom it has a contractual agreement).  But my Google skills aren't as good as yours. 

Speaking of which--have you never seen nor heard of nor Googled cases where fraud was found by a court but damages are zero?  You don't need damages to prove fraud.

And please just give up the ghost on use of the phrase "bad business practice"  -- use those Google skills and you'll see you may be the only one with that definition of "bad business practice"

And lastly mostly for Mike H's benefit, I'm presuming for the sake of discussion that Romain's version is/was true-I don't know that it is--so yes there is no universal agreement on what happened here.  But by the way, since I posted two people have contacted me with stories about how Visar has acted in a way that they viewed as negative--like backing out of what they thought was a done deal--not the conduct alleged here but neither had positive interactions with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ironmandrd said:

 

And lastly mostly for Mike H's benefit, I'm presuming for the sake of discussion that Romain's version is/was true-I don't know that it is--so yes there is no universal agreement on what happened here.  But by the way, since I posted two people have contacted me with stories about how Visar has acted in a way that they viewed as negative--like backing out of what they thought was a done deal--not the conduct alleged here but neither had positive interactions with him.

Agreed. Of course there isn't. I don't think I could have been more clear, and mentioned it more often, that I was speaking to behavior of buyers and sellers and their ethical/moral responsibility towards one another in the realm of honest and fair dealing. 

No one asked, implied or tried to force a global agreement on what occurred in the instant case(s) and my statement about things that can be more universally agreed upon I said (in full as it was pulled from context in a way that allowed for misinterpretation as something it was not intended to mean):

"You've spoken to "silence" on these matters (agency, ownership, possession) by the seller, but the discussion also includes implicit and explicit representations by sellers to potential buyers that are untrue. Surely you don't believe that false claims in the midst of commerce inducing buyers to commit and transact are simply 'bad practices' and nothing more, right?  I am trying to bridge the perceived gap here to something reasonable and patently clear that everyone can agree upon. "

The above is what I sought to show common ground on. That morality and ethics dictate that sellers cannot lie, deceive, misrepresent material facts to a potential buyer to get them to transact with them. Seems noncontroversial, no? Seems like a basic tenet of good faith and fair dealing, right? Inscrutable that anyone could find a way to say N O to that. You'd have to have not read the running commentary, or not understand it at all, to not realize that the claims in this thread are only part of the discussion and the overall discussion has grown to what is and what is not accepted and honest business practice. 

As for the central posters in this thread who've noted complaints: Several folks have asked follow up questions directly to one of more of the central parties without receiving clarification. So I know I wasn't speaking directly to the facts of the original post, but more to the concepts of deceit and deception in a transactional setting

Edited by comix4fun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ironmandrd said:

Sorry--unconvinced.  I literally have never heard of an "implied right to access" - the only "access" I've ever seen in matters like this relate to circumstances where its reasonable that a seller may not have possession of the items and may have to obtain them from a third party (with whom it has a contractual agreement).  But my Google skills aren't as good as yours. 

Speaking of which--have you never seen nor heard of nor Googled cases where fraud was found by a court but damages are zero?  You don't need damages to prove fraud.

And please just give up the ghost on use of the phrase "bad business practice"  -- use those Google skills and you'll see you may be the only one with that definition of "bad business practice"

And lastly mostly for Mike H's benefit, I'm presuming for the sake of discussion that Romain's version is/was true-I don't know that it is--so yes there is no universal agreement on what happened here.  But by the way, since I posted two people have contacted me with stories about how Visar has acted in a way that they viewed as negative--like backing out of what they thought was a done deal--not the conduct alleged here but neither had positive interactions with him.

I didn’t use the phrase “implied right of access”, but if you want one: hire a builder to install a pump in your basement. You will likely have given him an implied right of access to your house at some time because the written instrument is unlikely to give him express access or times to come in and install it. There are lots of implied duties in agreements, and common sense terms in offers are regularly read into them.

The only time damages are not needed to be proven is if you seek injunctive relief or some other extraordinary remedy, like a prejudgment writ of attachment. Getting one can require proof of fraudulent conduct and the substantial likelihood of loss in the future. Ever see Judge Napolitano on Fox News? When he was a practicing judge, he gave me one. Not easy to get.

I like the phrase “bad business practice”, thank you. For example, a dealer’s disorganized website which turns off potential buyers is a bad business practice. Not illegal—just not wise. Failing to promptly respond to customer inquiries—same deal. It can cover a lot of sins.

Backing out of an actual deal is a breach of contract. That’s more than just a bad business practice. Let me add that dealers who sell things for others ought to post something to the effect that providing ordered art is dependent upon it being furnished by the artist to them. Conditions are not ordinarily implied in contracts, without a good reason (like access to a site, above), so the promise of providing the art could be interpreted as absolute and unconditional. The dealer could get stuck unfairly.

This industry would be well served by mandatory arbitration for all claims under a certain dolllar amount. It would help cut down on questionable behavior at a cheaper price than court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I didn’t use the phrase “implied right of access”, but if you want one: hire a builder to install a pump in your basement. You will likely have given him an implied right of access to your house at some time because the written instrument is unlikely to give him express access or times to come in and install it. There are lots of implied duties in agreements, and common sense terms in offers are regularly read into them.

 

OMG.  I cannot believe you just did that.  Are you kidding????  That is "access" as in physical access---ZERO to do with what we are talking about.  Why don't you now start talking about easements?  O f'ing MG. 

 

35 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

I like the phrase “bad business practice”, thank you. For example, a dealer’s disorganized website which turns off potential buyers is a bad business practice. Not illegal—just not wise. Failing to promptly respond to customer inquiries—same deal. It can cover a lot of sins.

 

OMG again.  Yes -- EXACTLY. Those ARE bad business practices.  And ZERO to do with the alleged conduct we are talking about and your earlier points and position.

 

35 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Backing out of an actual deal is a breach of contract. That’s more than just a bad business practice. Let me add that dealers who sell things for others ought to post something to the effect that providing ordered art is dependent upon it being furnished by the artist to them. Conditions are not ordinarily implied in contracts, without a good reason (like access to a site, above), so the promise of providing the art could be interpreted as absolute and unconditional. The dealer could get stuck unfairly. 

 

 I don't even know what to make of this as this basically looks like it was written by someone indirectly trying to convince some guy named @Rick2you2 that he is wrong.  But wait, you are @Rick2you2,

This has devolved into ridiculousness.  Absent new info from Romain or Visar, I'm done with this thread.  See ya!

Edited by Ironmandrd
added more crazytown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ironmandrd said:

And lastly mostly for Mike H's benefit, I'm presuming for the sake of discussion that Romain's version is/was true-I don't know that it is--so yes there is no universal agreement on what happened here.  But by the way, since I posted two people have contacted me with stories about how Visar has acted in a way that they viewed as negative--like backing out of what they thought was a done deal--not the conduct alleged here but neither had positive interactions with him. 

I've had no interactions with either, so can't comment outside what both have posted here. Who's Mike H?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

That morality and ethics dictate that sellers cannot lie, deceive, misrepresent material facts to a potential buyer to get them to transact with them. Seems noncontroversial, no? Seems like a basic tenet of good faith and fair dealing, right? Inscrutable that anyone could find a way to say N O to that. You'd have to have not read the running commentary, or not understand it at all, to not realize that the claims in this thread are only part of the discussion and the overall discussion has grown to what is and what is not accepted and honest business practice. 

Only a total fool would walk into any transaction assuming any of this. Unless you already know the other party exceptionally well (or whatever metric leads you to...) enough to trust them fully based on that not the transaction at hand. D U H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, vodou said:

Fantasy. Just like D&D.

But it's definitely good business practice!

But isn’t that “fantasy” also what holds what we all like to call civilization together. Call it a lie agreed upon if you want, but at the end of the day so many social constructs are a fantasy, when you get right down to it. 

 

And the folks willing to step outside those social norms can and do generally do that to what they feel is their personal gain. They just don’t get to call unfair or whine when people want to call attention to those actions.

Right/wrong legal/illegal. Don’t off the folks that butter your bread if you can help it. And there are easy ways to help it. 

Way #1. Don’t be a d i c k.

Edited by ESeffinga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get a few things straight. 

 

1. If you sell original art, you're never gonna pick the slowest shipping option as you want the buyer to get the art as soon as possible. A DHL shipping (7 days) or even classic international shippng (10-12 days) can be done from Europe to the USA for less than 70 USD usually. So holding on a few bucks to pick the slowest shipping option is not very careful, and we all know that the longest the art is on the way, the more it gets a chance to be damaged, especially if the package is not bulletproof. Getting rid of the tracking number before it safely arrives, especially when picking the slowest shipping option, shows no consideration at all for the buyer, IMHO. 

2. Yes Visarspike put 9 pages on CAF for sale at the time of Romain's first post in this topic. One of them he just purchased, but the remaining  8 were from Romain's personal collection. And he had no agreement at all to proceed with these sales. He stole scans from the owner's collection and of course selected major pieces. He just thought he was gonna be able to get customers confirm a sale, and then he would have got back to the real owner of the pages. Is it dishonest ? What do you think... 

Is there a reason why he changed his ID a few times on comicartfans and other websites  ? I'll let you guess.  

And if I recall these events so precisely, it's because, I saw those pages for sale the day they were added on CAF and immediately contacted Romain, and a few other colelctores acted the same way. Of course, you can impagine the real owner of the pages was of course really pissed and contacted Comicartrfans's manager in the next few minutes.  I know that a few american collectors/dealers are more and more offering for sale pieces they don't own and have been in the business for years. But they're never gonna post it on CAf, they're just gonna send you stolen scans.  So here we have the french equivalent of these gentlemen. 

 

 

 

Edited by Comic Art Factory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a story a few years ago where a boardie was invited to a private collector's home, and took a pic of a buried McSpidey cover on the wall when that collector was distracted. The boardie then shopped the cover by showing the pic to prospective buyers. Totally without the owner's knowledge or consent.

IIRC, the reaction was 100% unanimous that this was egregious conduct by the boardie.

I don't see the alleged actions in question here as being too much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nexus said:

This reminds me of a story a few years ago where a boardie was invited to a private collector's home, and took a pic of a buried McSpidey cover on the wall when that collector was distracted. The boardie then shopped the cover by showing the pic to prospective buyers. Totally without the owner's knowledge or consent.

IIRC, the reaction was 100% unanimous that this was egregious conduct by the boardie.

I don't see the alleged actions in question here as being too much different.

A week ago, a collector told me a story.

It could be written in the Bible of colelcting. 

Step 1 : A collector visited him and saw a few pieces that were not for sale. He asked if he could take a few pictues.

Step 2 : a few days later, he called his fellow collector, to see if he could change his mind on a specific piece. The owner said no for the second time.

Step 3 : a few days pass, and the guy callas back the owner of the art, and says 'I have a potential customer for this piece. I could give you as much, and keep a fee for me". Once again the collector says NO. 

Step 4 : 3 days later, the guy calls again and says one his best line ever "Now you really have to sell it to me because I already accepted the buyer's money, and he's gonna get pissed if I don't give him the art".. I think you can imagine that the owner of the art was a little mad at his guy he previouly invited at his place and who tried to took advantage of him. And of course he hung up on him. 

 

 

Edited by Comic Art Factory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nexus said:

IIRC, the reaction was 100% unanimous that this was egregious conduct by the boardie.

 

4 minutes ago, Comic Art Factory said:

And of course he hung up on him.

...showing that these situations are largely self-healing. What else is anybody really after here...with all the pitchforks 'n torches business?

Where money changes hands and art doesn't and the money doesn't come back...that's where there is actual quantifiable (and actionable) harm. That matters. The rest...hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Comic Art Factory said:

A week ago, a collector told me a story.

It could be written in the Bible of colelcting. 

Step 1 : A collector visited him and saw a few pieces that were not for sale. He asked if he could take a few pictues.

Step 2 : a few days later, he called his fellow collector, to see if he could change his mind on a specific piece. The owner said no for the second time.

Step 3 : a few days pass, and the guy callas back the owner of the art, and says 'I have a potential customer for this piece. I could give you as much, and keep a fee for me". Once again the collector says NO. 

Step 4 : 3 days later, the guy calls again and says one his best line ever "Now you really have to sell it to me because I already accepted the buyer's money, and he's gonna get pissed if I don't give him the art".. I think you can imagine that the owner of the art was a little mad at his guy he previouly invited at his place and who tried to took advantage of him. And of course he hung up on him. 

 

 

"Tales of the Self-Entitled and Ethically-Dubious" lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1