Slashdot Mirror
Trekkie Sues Christie's for Fraudulent Props
Token_Internet_Girl passed us a link to an MSNBC article on a very disappointed Star Trek fan. Mr. Moustakis of NJ bought a poker visor he thought was worn by Data in Next Generation at a Christie's auction for some $6,000. When he brought it to a convention to have it signed, actor Brent Spiner explained that he'd already sold the well-known visor in a personal sale; like Senator Vreenak, Moustakis had been given a fake. "Christie's spokesman Rik Pike stood behind the authenticity of the auction and said the disgruntled buyer's case had no merit. 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."
Fraud is one of the few cases in tort law where punitive damages are somewhat commonly awarded...not usually on the order of what this guy is asking, but still to some degree.
Value these days is indeed anticipatory. If you bought a house that was guaranteed to be atop a famous grave, that purchase is more or less an investment. If it turned out that John Q. Public was underneath, that would be bad for business. Similarly, if you bought a stock based on reports from cooked books, you'd have a similar gripe.
What's interesting about this is, does value equal what you thought you could make, or the price you paid for whatever you bought? This guy was in a line with (at best) 10 people in earshot of what was said, not quite worth what he's suing for if the merit is based entirely on the buyer being 'humiliated'.
Something tells me this lawsuit could have been better if a lawyer wasn't so eager to grasp at straws. It looks like the guy was sold a fake, nonetheless, so avoiding that auction house until this is settled might be a good idea.
Was looking for information about a duplicate set of Dorothy's ruby slippers (I think there was a similar thing about them - a couple of pairs - one worn and one not - and this web page came up:
;-)
http://www.originalprop.com/blog/
Quote:
"Coincidentally, the visor that is referenced in the article as the piece Spiner told the collector was not his visor, was a piece I was interested in for myself at the time of the auction. I had asked a friend in attendance to place a bid for me. After reading this story, I immediately remembered that the auctioneer had noted, before opening the item for bids, that there was an updated description for the item, and that it was made for the show/character, but was not the one seen/used. I don't have the exact quote from the live webcast, but my note on a private forum at the time (we were making notes and discussing in real time) was as follows:
I asked Brandon to bid $1600 on Data's visor (up now)...
Not even worn! I'm okay to miss that one then!
Because this was broadcast on the web and via the History Channel on television, I'm sure the exact remarks by the Christies auctioneer/representative prior to bids placed will have an impact on this case."
End Quote...
If this is true then the guy probably has no case but does have an expensive spiffy green visor.
Honestly... is it really that difficult to proof-read the headline? It's "fraud" not "frad."
It's not a problem of authenticity, because the prop was an authentic Star Trek prop. The problem is they made more than of of said prop. One was worn by the actor and, it seems, was kept and later sold by said actor. In the Christie's auction it seems that it was noted (however late) that the prop in question was not one worn by the actor, but was indeed an authentic prop.
He's also complaining about a uniform he bought. FTA: "He said that . . . the uniform appeared to be one of several made for the program, not a one-of-a-kind, as [he] believed it to be."
It's possible that this guy was mislead about or misunderstood the rarity of these costume items, but either way, I believe it's incorrect to claim that they're fraudulent.
Speaking from personal experience, there are no "one-of-a-kind" spacesuits for regular cast members, because the studio needed to have several doubles in case one of our costumes got dirty or damaged in some way (I once fell while running to the set, and tore the knee out of my hideous gray suit from Season 2, for example.) We never had just one of anything, unless it was expensive to make, or for a guest star who was appearing in just one show.
This guy also says that Brent told him that the visor he bought wasn't the one Brent wore, because Brent already sold that one years ago. Again, Brent could have been talking about a visor from Best of Both Worlds, and this guy got a visor from All Good Things, or something like that.
It doesn't make sense that CBS an Christie's would defraud fans the way this guy alleges, and I think it's more likely that this guy has buyer's remorse, and is looking for a way to get his money back.
one has to consider the possibilities as to which way to go. There are two possible truths, and two possible reactions.
1) It's authentic (or at least, authentic enough, it may have been a prop double or spare instead of the "hero" prop, and that may count enough), and they refund the money
2) it's authentic and they don't refund
3) it's fake and they refund
4) it's fake and they don't refund
Case 1 shuts up the buyer and may limit the bad press a bit, and 6 grand is not a big hit to take, but leaves other buyers questioning the autheniticity of other items
Case 2 puts slightly more credibility in the auction house at the expense of more bad press and litigation
Case 3 REALLY is no different than case 1
Case 4 sets them up for a double fall, selling bad goods AND trying to get away with it
Right now they are probably trying for case 2, and really if you compare them, is the best possible outcome. It's quite likely that the visor was a prop double, and was not the actual one Spiner used on the set when they made the take. It could easily have been one worn during rehearsal or an alternate previous take, or during a cut additional scene we didn't see. This would make it pretty close to as authentic as described. Things like that they have more than one of, who knows, brent could have dropped it on the floor walking up to the set for a second take and scratched the visor, and so the prop master quickly handed him another one. Which is the "real" one? Most fanatics would be interested in the actual one he wore in the shot they watched, but both were brent's props and were bot worn by him during that episode. It's also possible due to the multiple takes for the scene that he wore two or even three of them during all the shots taken, and brent may only be considering the last one he wore, the one he took back to the trailer and later sold, to be the "real" one.
If you REALLY wanna get dirty, you could say that brent realized the value of the prop later after forgetting it on the set, (or just plain wanted to keep it at the time) and picked up another one in the prop room after being unable to find the one he just took off and left on the set, and sold that as the original.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I have the official Christie's catalog - it says it was "worn by Brent Spiner as Data" in "Descent, Part I" and "All Good Things".
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Still, that was a last minute update and the original catalogue states it as the authentic visor worn in two episodes. Perhaps he still has a case, though it does seem that Christies have covered their arses more than adequately.
Damages in any suit are almost never awarded to the total asked for by the plaintiff. The common-law court system operates a little oddly: the plaintiff is responsible for figuring out all the details of the rules under which damages could be awarded and presenting the judge with a list of which ones should be considered, and what range of penalties can be applied for each of them; the amount which they "ask for" is the total of all these. The judge (or jury, in certain brain-damaged jurisdictions) then decides which of these rules to apply, and to what extent, to generate the figure for damages awarded. Nobody ever expects this to be the maximum.
The idea behind this approach is that a common-law system has so many obscure and poorly-documented rules, you might never be sure that you have uncovered all of the ones that apply to a given case, so the courts limit themselves to considering only those rules that the plaintiff can cite.
The point here is that the amount which the plaintiff asks for is not a particularly interesting number in its own right. All it does is define the upper boundary on what the case will consider.