Do you think Antiquorum should disclose the consignor's identity to Nico right now? If not, then under what circumstances (if any) short of a court order do you think Antiquorum should disclose the consignor's identity, and to whom?
Also, before concluding that you "would expect [Antiquorum] to go running from the entire issue," wouldn't you want some additional data points from other auction houses, to know what is standard/customary business industry practice in such situations? Don't you need that additional data to inform your expectations? Speaking personally, I felt that I needed to speak with folks from other auction houses before drawing any final conclusions about what Antiquorum did. So, I did speak with representatives from two other auction houses, and they said this is NOT how they would have handled this matter. They would have held the watch (or turned it over to law enforcement -- I didn't clarify that point) and NOT been so quick to return it to the consignor. Those additional data points influenced my expectations of what Antiquorum should/shouldn't have done regardless of whether it was the buyer, the police, or the victim who informed them that they reportedly had stolen property in their possession. I say this just as food for further thought. I'm not arguing with you, my friend -- I respect that we may have different expectations from the same set of facts, and I again appreciate that you are sharing your opinions here.
This message has been edited by CR on 2016-01-28 06:40:50