Apparently this guy has never heard the term "Caveat Emptor".

So did i understand this correctly: Christies are corrupt and the court helps them???

Do they get a cut?

I hope the collector appeals. I saw parts of that auction on T.V. and those items were being represented as authentic - not authentic copies. As far as Christie's being corrupt? Keep an eye out for the Christie's Home Shopping Network.

He should get his money back.

But $7 million? That's a bit much, don't you think?

No, the court didn't help Christies. They have to give the guy a refund. They just helped from letting the guy take complete advantage of the situation. $7 million? Did he really expect to make that much for what? Pain and suffering? Please.

The guy`s problem is that he tried for an astronomic over-payment as compensation.

The Courts will uphold the claim of a Plaintiff IF the aggrieved party can produce proof of their claim...
But no Judge is going to give this guy carte blanche to soak the Defendant for that amount of overage. Even if he could have proven willful fraud on their part, it is hardly worth a figurative Blank Check payment.

Had he requested a full refund plus all costs he would surely have gotten the judgement in his favor. The Judge practically inferred as much. Hell, if he had gone for as much as 25% more in emotional distress compensation, he might even have gotten that with some cagey representation.

But 7 MILLION DOLLARS ??
Waaay out of line.

He`ll be lucky if Christie`s doesn`t Counter-Sue for Costs & Damages using the Appellate ruling as the basis for a claim against him on the grounds that he has damaged their reputation with a spurious lawsuit, and that he has cost them legal expences in defence of same.

There should be some punitive damages as they are representing the items a genuine. He sue for a ridiculous amount, but the courts need to punish Christies as bidders rely on their statement that the article being auctioned off are genuine. If this was a Monet or Rembrant you know they would have been punished if it was a forgery!

Granted, I haven't read every single response to this article but one glaring error seems to have been missed by everyone - especially the poor idiot who bought that snake oil stuff:

DATA, DID NOT WEAR A VISOR!

JORDI WORE A VISOR!

Umm...OldManInOhio, apparently you didn't read the article, either. It was a poker visor, along with a table and uniform.

As for the stuff in question, this isn't the first time we've seen this type of semi-ethical treatment of collectables.

Ahhhh! THANK YOU, "Evil", that just about covers it.

I forgot about the poker games with Data. Reading the term "Visor" I immediately thought of Jordi's famous Visor. I don't play poker...sorry. But I do play Backgammon!
I said I didn't read much. I guess I should carefully read every word before writing. Good advice for anyone on the Internet.

I remember hearing about them not being authentic a while back. If I remember correctly, Didn't it turn out that Brent Spiner took the actual "dealer visor" home with him??
The same with the poker table, I thought someone lent it to the show and took it back afterward or something??
I'm not sure..

As William Shatner once said "get a life!"

What's the expression? "A fool and his money..."

What kind of moron would pay six grand for a visor!? I don't care if Penelope Cruz wore it as a pantyliner; there are much better ways to spend that kind of money.

Data's poker visor
http://hosting.nitescifi.com/upload/1261623330.jpg

Read the article moron, says poker visor

I have to agree with the courts ruling on this one. Of course they made more an one prop for the show, and to ask to be repaid an outrageous amount, way more that what he originally paid for the items, it's silly and just greedy. If he doesn't like the product than return the merchandise and get his money back. But don't be a prick about it.

He might have won if he had sued for his money back, maybe double, plus court costs. 7 million is silly and would have given me pause as a juror

I know there are crazy-purists who want to possess actual items from the show (with some props, it's understandable), but why not bother with cheaper replica's for their mock-sets? Apparently this is what those auctioneers did, and the fanboy didn't know the difference. Granted, the guy got shafted, and there are laws against such misrepresentation, but that amount he wanted was just ludicrous. Bad jobs on both sides, guys.

It was the amount he was asking that was out of line and he didn't lose the entire case as some seem to imply in their reply about counter-suits. 2 of the items were total fakes and Christie's is on the hook to repay the man. under the law. The Judge held that the 3rd item was not advertised as a unique item so the plaintiff could not recover what he spent. He idd however state that Christie's had to give his money back on the two fakes, which is the law. One reason Christie's has the experts is to cover it's butt if something they represent is a fake, such as te mentioned paintings, etc..

D'oh!

Well yeah he is suing for 7 million cause his wife probably left him with the kids in tow or his parents are kicking him out of their basement so they can move to Florida… bottom line is he asked for that much cause he probably realized how much of his life was wasted plus the money he has wasted through the years. So he probably figures it was worth 7 million.

@wraithfodder42

Actually, what William Shatner said was "Get.........a life"

@atergo,

"Actually", it is also a misquote to attribute the line to Shatner as it was the creation of the SNL writer Robert Smigel who wrote the line for a character in one of his skits based on a caricature of the real Shatner.

Shatner had no contribution to the creation of that line other than good-naturedly agreeing to portray the character as it would be written.

It's called "punitive damages". If the company has to pay a large fine for doing something wrong, maybe it will think twice before doing it again. How else is it going to learn?