rxx4 hasn't been here in over a month.
rxx4 hasn't been here in over a month.
Still recent enough to be recent.
Thanks Henbooks, Adjusterjack, TaxingMatters I am still working on this, actually thought of your breach of contract approach Henbooks because as Adjusterjack has spelled out proving the fraud is the hard. Several attorneys I interviewed said that too. So really it seems that the 10K the gallery still retains is really all I would get if I go to court for trying to get treble damages based on fraud (as adjusterjack said before) plus I have to pay an attorney who really should not put me down this path as we have learned here. Signing the stupid release would get me the 10K so there is no need to go to court if that is really what I wanted. But I want the art work. I not sure 100% but from what I can tell, the piece has been removed from his website, it is possible that he sold the piece at a higher price to someone else, I don't know for sure. That might be the reality and what he was trying to do all along.
I reopened the BBB compliant and said exactly what you said Henbooks that the refund agreement was breach on top of the 2 other breaches and we are back at the original price to buy the work and the owner responded and said the following: "I'm not here to argue your facts although I feel they are completely wrong. What I propose as a final solution is to sign the release which is no cost to you and get your money back. Basically, this is just a "final dear john letter" whereas I never have to hear from you again and you never have to hear from me and because of your conduct, lack of timely payment & threats under advice of counsel this is his recommendation. So if you would like to sign it you will get your money back if you don't want to sign it then govern yourself accordingly."
He's pulling the harassment card for filing BBB and me having a problem with him not willing to return my money freely...wonderful. It seems to me that any talk of doing the original deal is not in his mind from what I can tell because he probably sold it at a higher price as he was trying in the months before, is happy now, and is taking the approach that it is my fault for not make payments on time therefor blaming me for breach. But again, I stopped paying after problems appeared and confronted him, then filed BBB, then was given the offer to fly down and fully pay, but he wouldn't coordinate with me to do that and confirm it was ready so I could book a ticket. that is black and white, he was given a second chance and he didn't follow through there either.
What do you guys think of the breach of contract chances? I think it's pretty good. If the art is sold then would I go after the amount he sold it for (How could you trust anything he says) or do I go after the appraised price? Could I do that myself and show the court recent auction results or do I have to pay someone to do that? Could I not ask for an injunction to get the piece from whoever owns it now. One attorney I talked to said that it would be the gallery owner's responsibility to do whatever it takes to get the piece back, if he has to pay 200k to get it back that is his problem. Also, given the situation could I ask for attorney's fees in this case as part of the damages and actually get it? If I lose could the gallery owner come after me for his attorney's fees?
As you have been told in a breach of contract you would get what you paid and that is already being offered.
So he breached the contract but I want the art and I just get a refund if he doesn't want to sell it to me regardless if he has it or not? I have no other damages because he won't sell it to me? Are I not entitled to get it at the agreed price? So if he doesn't sell it to me then what is the point of an agreement to sell it to me then? Can't he be forced to sell it to me?
What if I didn't pay him a dime, then according to your thought process he has no damages because he still has the art and he couldn't come after me for breaching the contract because he has no damages....that doesn't make sense, that makes agreements pointless.
If the two of you had a contract for him to sell it to you he could conceivably sue to force you to honor the contract and purchase the item for the contracted price.
So why can I not sue him to force him to honor the contract and purchase the item for the contracted price??
So does the gallery know how to work the legal system, because it seems really easy. According to you guys here is how you do it: make a deal, keep buyer one as place holder on deck, take partial money, ignore the deal, continue to sell for more to other buyers and buy yourself time because you have nothing to lose, get higher amount buyer, sell to higher amount buyer, hold money of first buyer until they sign a paper that they can do nothing to you (which doesn't matter anyways because according you guys you can't do anything if they do all this shit and just say they want to give you back your money regardless of any crazy way of their choosing), gallery wins with higher amount and no one can come after them. How is this not a f-iing scam, how is this not planned and plotted to know how to come out without a scratch. Oh, you want me to find his black book and diary where he wrote this how to in his dear diary entry before the date we made a deal. And how am I not damaged by this after a 1 year of him holding my money. Just getting back my money doesn't fix my damages, the art is now 50k more and I can never get it again, it's out of my reach, it escalated too much. How does just getting a refund fix my situation? I am damaged beyond that, what 1 dimensional law book did you guys read.
I think PayrolGuy, Adjusterjack, TaxingMatters are incorrect and are not accounting for your damages correctly. I think if the gallery owner sold your art at a higher price you are not only entitled to the amount he retains but I feel you are also entitled to the difference of what your original agreed price was with him and the higher price he probably sold it at. Telling you that your damages are just contained to a simple 10K retained amount makes no sense and to me is completely wrong. I'm not sure what their backgrounds are but for the most part their advise seems correct but they don't seem to be able to account for all damages correctly. Which would the most important aspect of this if the art is no longer available. The gallery owner basically took the profits from you that were yours. They are wrong, your damages are not just the retained 10k