Barrett-Jackson rumblings: Trouble in Westworld?

Link: Barrett-Jackson rumblings: Trouble in Westworld?.

Filed under: Auction Action, Government/Legal

It seems like the recent rumblings out of Westworld are failing to die down. A high profile ejection of a respected collector car expert, rumors of shill bidding on company-owned muscle cars, and cars not getting their fair amount of stage time have all generated headlines from this year's biggest auction event, the Barrett-Jackson auction at Scottsdale, and those don't even address the biggest gripe most people seem to have - the seemingly insane high bids. For years people have commented on the super high prices muscle cars have been bringing at the Arizona auctions every January. Some have speculated that there might be something shady behind these gavel values, while others have simply been amazed.

We've vacillated over individual vehicles that don't seem to be "worth" six (or seven!) figures, but in the end understand that "worth" is determined by the buyer. At this year's auction we had a lot of fun getting caught up in the show and seeing some of our favorite vehicles throughout history, up close and in the flesh. It was a very exciting week of muscle cars, race cars, classics and customs, with a bit of drama thrown in for good measure

Comments

[Robbie Sherwood]

I just wanted to post Barrett-Jackson's response to these unfounded, unsourced and untrue rumors are being spread on message boards and blogs. See below:

Barrett-Jackson responds

As always Barrett-Jackson wishes to thank our many customers, guests and fellow car enthusiasts. Working together we create something very special in Scottsdale every January and Palm Beach a couple of months later.

However, some recent, false postings on blogs and discussion forums now force us to shift from thanking so many to asking an irresponsible few: “what were you thinking?”

Also, please consider this posting an official, legal request of this blog from Barrett-Jackson to remove all content sparked by the post below since the original source of the information has since retracted the story and further publication of it, such as on this forum, will be subject to the aggressive legal action we should and must take to eliminate the absurd and false information contained on this site.

Though our attorney disagrees with me, I am of the mindset that Mr.
Barer’s original comments at www.apexstrategy.com (fourwheeldrift blog) – comments that led to others such as this blog to post the same inaccurate, irresponsible and legal defamatory information about Barrett-Jackson’s business practices -- may have been naïve or
innocent. That’s because he may have simply been careless to repeat
rumors he has heard from so-called “insiders” who claim to know various salacious things about our recent event. It is hard to imagine that a “freelance journalist” (as Mr. Barer’s website defines him) would recklessly publish so many unfounded and untrue statements in one package. Regardless of Mr. Barer’s intent, Barrett-Jackson takes all public attacks on its business practices quite seriously, particularly when they are published to an audience as far-reaching as users of the Internet by someone holding himself out as a professional journalist.

As with Mr. Barer’s original posting – one he has now replaced (see
below) --repeating his original comments on this blog does not excuse the false and defamatory information now posted as a result of Mr. Barrer’s original, bogus entry.

As President of Barrett-Jackson, I can assure readers of this forum that the claims made in Mr. Barer’s posting are patently false. There is no lawsuit by a well-known judge. There is no class action lawsuit. There is no situation involving Barrett-Jackson owning many cars that are run through the auction and providing “shill bidders” to inflate prices of vehicles. There are no secret trucks transporting vehicles back to Barrett-Jackson’s “warehouse” after unsuccessful sales. It is impossible to respond to each of the claims made in this posting in any reasonable, professional manner, and Mr. Barer should not be so reckless in repeating as “proven” such fabricated stories. This forum should not be so reckless as to repeat them.

In fact, the laundry list of wrongdoing cited as fact by Mr. Barer would be almost comical if the statements were not so directly harmful to the business that hundreds of people have worked so hard to build in these last
36 years.

The varied and far-fetched claims made by Mr. Barer in his story are not worthy of any further response other than to say that the only lawsuit surrounding these matters is likely to be one for defamation filed by Barrett-Jackson against any and all who repeat fantasy rather than fact.

Finally, thank you to all of our bidders, buyers and enthusiasts who wrote in and directly refuted this nonsense. It had an impact on Mr.
Barer and if we have one thing to thank him for is that he was willing to listen after receiving an avalanche of testimonials and facts directly refuting his rumor and innuendo.

Good people when confronted with good, new information re-evaluate and correct course. That is what Mr. Barer has done and what this forum should do as well.

Steve Davis

President

Barrett-Jackson Auction Co.

*******THE BARER RETRACTION POSTED ON WWW.APEXSTRATEGY.COM THE REASON IT IS NO LONGER HERE February 1, 2007 After some real soul searching I decided to take down the posting regarding Barrett-Jackson. I was not going to offer an explanation to readers, but after widespread rumors, many emails and telephone calls, I wish to set the record straight.

Steve Davis, President of Barrett-Jackson took the time and effort to read the article, and then posted a comment that argued that the content was “reckless.” I firmly believe that in writing it I far exceeded the standard of conduct applicable to opinion pieces published on the internet. Each of the allegations made in the piece was already published in print, on message boards, around the blogosphere, through email lists, or had been circulating via car club events. I have additional sources who provided other information regarding most of the points.

That being said, as I reread the piece and gave it a lot of thought, I came to the belief in retrospect that while a valid piece of journalistic workmanship, it could be arguably seen from Barrett-Jackson’s standpoint as unfair. I had aggregated claims and allegations from sellers and participants over the years, yet had not leavened the piece with B-J’s side of the story. In taking it down, it offers B-J time to respond, educate, investigate…I even provided B-J the name and contact information of the now-famous judge (with his
consent,) who sold his high-profile car on Saturday of the event.
Hopefully, they can communicate and come to an understanding, and both report back.

Since I have no personal animosity against B-J (I believe it to be one of the most entertaining auto events of the season,) and I realize there are two sides to this and every story, I felt the better course of action was to pull it down and integrate anything they chose to communicate within a new article.

Furthermore, the article brought out many additional people (including some names car enthusiasts would recognize) who have taken time to tell me their personal stories of interaction with B-J and other auction companies. So like an artist who looks at his painting after the fact, this story, if and when it is updated, can look so much better, in my opinion, with all of the information provided by these sellers, attendees, as well as auction company representatives. (I also thank Drew Alcazar from Russo and Steele for taking time out of his busy schedule to communicate with me. I look forward to hearing more from him, as well as representatives from other auction companies, who have contacted offering to share information regarding their experiences.)

My final reason for pulling the article was that it was getting too personal on many levels. From threats of lawsuits against me to attacks against those posting on the blog with differing views, it simply was not what The Four Wheel Drift was intended to be about.

I personally thank all those who have sent their stories and support, as well as those many great, trustworthy sources who were the basis of the original story.

Sincerely,

Sam Barer
The Four Wheel Drift

*********BARRETT-JACKSON’S ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO THE FALSEHOODS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM BARRETT-JACKSON COLLECTOR CAR AUCTION SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. – February, 2007

THE Barrett-Jackson Auction Company is aware of postings on various “blogs” and online discussion boards that make false and libelous statement regarding the Company’s business practices. While the author that started this discussion decided to remove the posting after receiving a written statement and legal warning from Barrett-Jackson, the original blog content has been copied to numerous other Web sites and other locations on the Internet.
The reply from Barrett-Jackson has not been copied to these additional
locations. Continued posting of false and defamatory information
about Barrett-Jackson, no matter the original source, is not acceptable. We will pursue any and all legal action against individuals, forums and blogs that convey defamatory language about the company and its auctions.

The statements published in the original posting, and repeated in numerous other forums since that time, are untrue and are potentially harmful to Barrett-Jackson’s business interests. Barrett-Jackson issues the following statement for the purposes of clarifying the situation and providing its position regarding the accusations made against the Company.

• There is no lawsuit against Barrett-Jackson alleging improper or
unlawful auction practices.

• Barrett-Jackson has historically offered a combination of reserve and no-reserve vehicles across the auction block. In a sale with a reserve, a vehicle is not sold if the reserve price is not met. In a no-reserve sale, every vehicle that crosses the block is sold to the highest bidder, regardless of the amount of the last bid that is made before the fall of the auctioneer’s hammer. In a no-reserve sale, the owner of a car may not bid (by himself or through an agent) on his own car.

• In recent years, Barrett-Jackson has run auctions that are completely no-reserve. This is a business decision made by Barrett-Jackson; there is no legal or other requirement that all vehicles be sold at no-reserve. In the future, Barrett-Jackson may opt to offer vehicles with a reserve.

• Owner buybacks and so-called “chandelier” or “shill” bidding are
forbidden on all no-reserve vehicles sold at Barrett-Jackson. The practice is specifically prohibited in the consignment contract signed by each seller.

• Barrett-Jackson’s auction staff monitors all bid activity to the best of its ability while a vehicle is on the block. If Barrett-Jackson sees that an owner (or someone known to be the owner’s agent) is bidding on his own vehicle, the Company stops the bidding and reverts to the last bid.

• With the size of Barrett-Jackson’s auction venue and the presence of
thousands of registered bidders, it is physically impossible to guarantee that no owner (or an unidentified owner’s agent) attempts to bid on his own vehicle. For this reason, it is Barrett-Jackson’s policy to penalize any owner who successfully bids on his own vehicle by charging that person both the seller’s commission and the buyer’s premium on that vehicle. This penalty serves as a meaningful deterrent for those who may otherwise choose to ignore the rules. Individuals who fail to abide by auction regulations may also be barred from participating in future Barrett-Jackson events.

• Barrett-Jackson continually updates its practices and procedures to
implement additional measures to prohibit owner buy-backs and to prevent the practice of “chandelier” bidding in any no-reserve situation. These procedures include a continually evolving use of technology and visual aids to assist the auction staff in identifying owners who may attempt to bid on their own vehicles.

• Our business is based on honesty and integrity. We cannot conduct the ambitious events we do every year without it.

• We are always available to respond to questions. All one needs to
do is ask rather than respond with completely ridiculous, inaccurate and ultimately illegal commentary.

Sincerely,

Robbie Sherwood, Spokesperson-Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auction
Former Reporter, Arizona Republic

[Maphpreeday]

Take time to reflect on all the things you have, not as a result of your
merit or hard work or because God or chance or the efforts of other people
have given them to you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ebloggy.com/ceceliaandersonvj

“ Jemi njohur n thellsi me programin e Polit t Liris. ...

Une commission se réunit ce lundi pour examiner les résultats...

[Amateur Homemade Erotica]

i'm gonna make my own journal

[Chicas Maxim]

any more posts coming ?

[Adidas World Cup 2010 Shoes]

Life have happy and angry, my shoes have beneficial and bad as well. Everything have two sides. we decide happy further, the same as we select a pair of excellent shoes suited to me.

[Air Jordan]

Art calls for complete mastery of techniques, developed by reflection within the soul. Do you agree?

[ClubPenguin]

My final reason for pulling the article was that it was getting too personal on many levels.

[game copy wizard]

i just returned from the 2011 B-J and R&S auctions. both vastly different. both with their own pros and cons. i am very interested in hearing from other attendees this year.
my story (and i would welcome steve davis to call me to discuss, i have only spoken to B-J's attorney virginia llewelyn) last year regarding the sale of my car. the long and the short of my story is that i consigned the car only when the consignment rep told me i could buy my car back paying the 8% seller's and 10% buyers commissions. this is a fact.
a well-known, auto pundit attorney i consulted had the following to say about my situation...
"...Your consignment agreement does not specifically prevent you from bidding on your own car. It clearly obligates you to pay the 18% if you do, but it is unclear as to whether you can or not. Also, they give you a bidder number as part of your consignment. Under Arizona law, which is the same pretty much everywhere, you are allowed to bid on your own car only if BJ advises the bidders that your doing so is allowed. In 2006, their bidder contract made that disclosure, and seller bidding was legitimate. In 2007, they dropped that disclosure, although they could have legally made the disclosure in other ways (eg, signs, announcements).
Your consignment agreement does not contain a routine contractual provision that the written contract serves as the entire deal, so it could be possible for you to bring other agreements into the deal, such as the oral assurances. The biggest legal problem may be proving damages. BJ will argue strongly that the price brought by your car was actually market value, so you did not suffer any real damage by not being able to stop the sale. ...the case would force a very exacting analysis of their entire “all no reserve” approach. There are a vast number of opportunities to prove that seller buy-backs were condoned.

if there are others out there with similar situations from this year, i would like to hear from you. i don't believe i will ever have the wherewithal to ever pursue this; but somebody @ B-J should have talked to me on site rather than refusing to see me. the only conversation i had was with their outside legal counsel.

[the pirates of caribbean 4]

Une commission se réunit ce lundi pour examiner les résultats...