Fontaine's Auction Gallery

Evidence and facts below for seller misconduct, fabricated description failing to accurately and truthfully depict the item sold, and unrealistic amount of money for falsifying claims of storage and loss of profit.
I placed several bids on Fontaine's Auction Gallery's pocket watches that I thought were gold on November 2014. The seller failed to place full description of these items and misrepresented these items by writing 14k GF on description. The items are not gold filled or gold full like the abbreviation means. Abbreviations that have multiple meanings misrepresent items without the full name. During the auction, the seller refused to negotiate or resolve this dispute for misrepresentation. I tried to retract my bids several times during the auction. Now the plaintiff still demands an unrealistic profit and storage fees( storage that takes up less than 3 by 3 inches of space) with interest in amount of 3,220 for items that cost a total of $725. Furthermore, worth of the watches is even less due to misrepresentation of description and lack of gold. I had offered fair amount for my mistaken bids. Plaintiff currently has items in his possession and refuses to accept my payment of buyer's fees and profit lost of $152.
Upon my first conversation with the buyer, I apologized for my placed bid due the aforementioned reason and asked to retract my bids. I also sent emails during the auction and offered to pay buyer premium for his profit loss and give the items to previous bidders or to resale. The seller refused and stated he will hold the items and charge storage fees of space that takes up less than 3 by 3 inches until I pay. He also stated he will take me to court and demand $5,000. He then kept the watches in his possession for over 200 days and refused to sell to previous bidders and also resale. In addition I tried to contact the seller multiple times to resolve the dispute and he refused to negotiate.
In the filed claim, the plaintiff is now asking for his lost profits. I offered to pay buyer premium and for him to give to previous bidders. He would have collected double the profit by accepting my offer, but he refused and demanded an unreasonable amount of money due to distress and fabricated storage space. He also refused to solve the problem through a General Attorney that offered him his buyer's fees and profit loss and to even pay for the item's original amount. He has refused all offers and is still asking for over $2000 for storage fees of pocket watches that take a few inches of space.
This unfair business and deceptive practice by Fontaine's Auction Gallery is unacceptable. We also contacted Berkshire meditation service to try to resolve this dispute but failed. I had offered fair amount for my mistaken bids. Plaintiff currently has items in his possession and refuses to accept my payment for items 725, buyer's fees and profit loss of152.

false descriptions of goods, fake provenance, selling products under false pretense, description provided by Fontain's Auction Gallery inaccurate!I WAS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER ON LOT #12 IN YOUR AUCTION ON FEBRUARY 22ND 2014.YOUR AUCTION DESCRIPTION OF THAT LOT STATED IT ORIGINATED IN [redacted] 1988 [redacted] COLLECTION:"Native American Skull Cracker, c. 1880. Long leather wrapped handle decorated with beaded straps, fringed leather hide and red horse hair at the [redacted] end; consignor purchased at [redacted] from the [redacted] Collection; framed and protected in a hanging plexiglass case. 37 in. high x 14 in. wide."I CONTACTED [redacted] IN NEW YORK AND LOT # 2523 IN [redacted] COLLECTION AUCTION IN 1988 THAT WAS LABELED AS SUCH WAS YOUR LOT #12 BUT THE[redacted] DESCRIPTION DOES NOT MATCH [redacted] THE ITEM THAT YOU OFFERED.THE PIECE WAS LATER EXAMINED BY A NATIVE AMERICAN EXPERT AT [redacted] AND HE FOUND THAT PIECE TO BE AUTHENTIC BUT MENTIONED FREQUENTLY FAKE LABELS THAT INDICATE THE PIECE ORIGINATED IN THE [redacted] COLLECTION HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST TO INFLATE THE VALUE OF A PIECE. [redacted] EXPERT PUT THE VALUE OF YOUR LOT #12 AT $500 - $700 SUSPECTING THE [redacted] LABEL IS FAKE.I PAID $1028 TO YOU FOR THAT PIECE.I WANT TO RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND AS YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS NOT ACCURATE OR I WANT YOU TO PAY ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE [redacted] EXPERTS APPRAISAL OF THE PIECE BEING APPROXIMATELY $600 AND WHAT I PAID YOU; BEING $1028. THE DIFFERENCE IS $428.WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ME RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND OR WOULD YOU RATHER REFUND TO ME THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PIECE, AS IT DID NOT ORIGINATE IN [redacted] COLLECTION, THAT DIFFERENCE BEING $428.I wrote to you days ago concerning lot #12 that I bought in your February 22nd Auction.This is the last communication from me you will receive, if you do not reply, I will take legal action to rectify your misrepresentation of the provenance and title of that lot in question. The provenance you stated; being from the "[redacted] Collection," in [redacted] 1988 New York Auction, item number 2523, is either fraudulent or, at best, incorrect. In addition; that lot #12 was listed in your auction records, description, and invoice as "skull cracker," which is incorrect, as it is not a weapon, but rather a ceremonial dance wand.Based upon those facts I expect a complete refund or the difference between the value of that lot, without authentic Warhol provenance, and the actual price I paid.A [redacted] Native American expert assumes the "[redacted]" label is fake based upon his past experience with similar falsified labels, and put the actual value of that lot 12 at $600 because there is no authentic [redacted] provenance.The following is what I wrote to you, on April 14th 2014, and this is what I still expect from you:"I WANT TO RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND AS YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS NOT ACCURATE OR I WANT YOU TO PAY ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE [redacted] EXPERTS APPRAISAL OF THE PIECE BEING APPROXIMATELY $600 AND WHAT I PAID YOU; BEING $1028. THE DIFFERENCE IS $428. WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ME RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND, OF $1028, OR WOULD YOU RATHER REFUND TO ME THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PIECE, AS IT DID NOT ORIGINATE IN [redacted] COLLECTION AND YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS INCORRECT, THAT DIFFERENCE BEING $428." I HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN.SINCERELY[redacted]C/O [redacted]SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA XXXXX USAU.S.A. PHONE AND FAX # (XXX)-XXX-XXXXEMAIL: [redacted]comWEB SITE: www.[redacted]AUTHORED BOOKS: "THE LAST FILIPINO HEAD HUNTERS," "SACRED JOURNEY: THE GANGES TO THE HIMALAYAS," "TEN SOUTHEAST ASIAN TRIBES FROM FIVE COUNTRIES" AND "PERSPECTIVES: INTERVIEWS ANSEL ADAMS, JERRY UELSMANN, RALPH GIBSON, AND ROBERT HEINECKEN." COVER "SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE" 2014, DVD DOCUMENTARIES: "CHRISTO: THE UMBRELLA PROJECT," "KEITH HARING: ARTIST AT WORK" AND "NAM JUNE PAIK." [redacted]'S MUSEUM COLLECTIONS: THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTDesired Settlement"I WANT TO RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND AS YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS NOT ACCURATE OR I WANT YOU TO PAY ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BONHAM'S EXPERTS APPRAISAL OF THE PIECE BEING APPROXIMATELY $600 AND WHAT I PAID YOU; BEING $1028. THE DIFFERENCE IS $428.WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE ME RETURN THE PIECE TO YOU FOR A FULL REFUND, OF $1028, OR WOULD YOU RATHER REFUND TO ME THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TRUE VALUE OF THE PIECE, AS IT DID NOT ORIGINATE IN WARHOLS COLLECTION AND YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS INCORRECT, THAT DIFFERENCE BEING $428."Business Response This claim is by a customer who purchased an item at the February 22, 2014 auction, the item was shipped to him 3/3/2014, it was received and signed by the customer on 3/10/2014. The first contact with the gallery about a potential problem was on 4/15 @ 7:51 PM, effectively taking 52 days from the time of his purchase to inform us there was a problem and 22 days after our guarantee had expired. Below is communication with [redacted] concerning why the item in question was not accepted for return.[redacted],I am checking into our guarantee policy as it pertains to your purchase. In the meantime you may also want to read the terms of sale which you agreed to in order to bid. Hi [redacted],Below is #12 & #14 of the terms of sale which were in effect on the date of your purchase. Please review them and let me know your thoughts on how they apply to your purchase - [redacted]. 12. Warranties and Guarantees - This is a Guaranteed Auction as expressly stated in this paragraph. General: All information in the Catalog concerning: age, authenticity, genuineness, quantity, period, culture, source, or origin is warranted for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of sale by [redacted]'s Auction Gallery14. Rescission by Purchaser - If within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) calendar days after the sale, the original purchaser a) gives written notice to [redacted]'s Auction Gallery, alleging that the age, authenticity, genuineness, quantity, period, culture, source, or origin as set forth in the terms of sale and warranted by [redacted]'s Auction Gallery were materially inaccurate and misleading and substantially overstated the value of the Property, and b) receives written permission to return the Property from [redacted]'s Auction Gallery and c) returns the Property with five (5) days of receiving this permission and in the same condition it was in at the time of sale and d) proves the truth of such allegations to the satisfaction of [redacted]'s Auction Gallery, the sale of such lot will be rescinded. If [redacted]'s Auction Gallery has not yet paid the consignor the amounts due as a result of the sale to the purchaser, [redacted]'s Auction Gallery will refund the full purchase price to the purchaser.[redacted],Our terms of sale are in fact to protect the buyer & the seller. The reason that we give a 30 day guarantee is based on the fact that it is ample time to discover discrepancies with purchased items and we pay our consignors in 45 days, our consignors are also well aware of the guarantee that we offer. If you had contacted us prior to the expiration of the 30 day guarantee we would have been able to accept the item back if in fact the situation warranted it, however the consignor had been paid long before you brought this situation to my attention. There was nothing fraudulent on our part about this transaction because we were acting on information provided to us with the item and we guaranteed that information to be correct for 30 days from the auction date. We have been using this method for approx. 40 years and it works well as long as the time lines which we offer in our terms of sale and agreed to by you are followed. Your item was shipped to you on 3/3/2014, it was received and signed by you on 3/10/2014, your first contact with us about this problem was on 4/15 @ 7:51 PM, effectively taking 52 days from the time of your purchase to inform us of this situation and 22 days after the guarantee had expired. You were an online bidder through [redacted] and in order to bid you must agree to the terms of sale. By clicking the agree button you have given your electronic signature and therefore agreed to the terms of sale. I think that you ultimately have to take responsibility for your inaction to follow the terms of sale with regards to No.12, titled "Warrantees and Guarantees" and No. 14, titled "Rescission by Purchaser". If you would have followed the terms of sale that you agreed to, this situation would not have happened. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)YOUR AUCTION DESCRIPTION WAS INCORRECT. THE PROVENANCE FOR THAT LOT WAS FAKE. YOU EXPECT TO SELL, THROUGH YOUR AUCTIONS, ITEMS WITH FAKE PROVENANCE AND INCORRECT DESCRIPTIONS, WITHOUT EXPECTING TO GIVE REFUND PAST 30 DAYS. THAT'S HIGHLY UNETHICAL AND MUST STOP!Final Business Response 1. Did Mr. [redacted] entered into a legally binding contract with [redacted]'s Auction Gallery to bid on item(s) in the February 22, 2014 auction? (Yes)2. As part of the contract, did Mr. [redacted] agree to the Warrantee and Return policy which was in effect for that auction? (Yes)3. Did the Warrantee & Return policy which was in effect for that auction state that the item was warranted for 30 days from the date of sale? (Yes) 4. Did Mr. [redacted] take 52 days to notify us of a problem with the item? (Yes)5. Did Mr. [redacted] inform the Revdex.com that it took over 30 days from the purchase date to receive his item? (Yes) 6. In fact did Mr. [redacted] receive his item in 16 days from the purchase date, leaving 2 weeks before the expiration of the warrantee to inform us of any problem with the item? (Yes)We have emailed a copy of the UPS shipping & tracking documentation to the Revdex.com which states that Mr. [redacted] personally signed for this item on March 10, 2014, which is 16 days from the date of purchase and not over 30 days as Mr. [redacted] has stated in his recent correspondence with the Revdex.com. Mr. [redacted] refers to truth and honesty in his most recent response but statements he has made to the Revdex.com should be addressed and his credibility brought into question since his claim that it took twice as long to receive his item than it actually took is obviously a fabrication and not truthful. If any of the previous questions are answered incorrectly, then we will refund the $428.00 that Mr. [redacted] has requested. If the questions are answered correctly, then Mr. [redacted] is not entitled to a refund. Final Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I have been advised by council: "the statue of limitation on fraud is seven years" and a 30 day time limit arbitrarily imposed by [redacted] Fonatine does not change that. I am in the process of providing Mr. [redacted] with legal paperwork in a law sue to prove that, which he is already aware of.It's best we let a judge decide this matter. That is what judges are for; seeing that we can not agree.Please expect that paperwork, that I previously mentioned to you, on more than one occasion, to be delivered to you in the very near future via certified mail.I suggest Mr. [redacted] contact council.It was not possible to do the research required, through [redacted] and [redacted] that was necessary to prove that piece in question was misrepresented and the provenance faked. It is not possible to have done it more quickly.I did not received that item until 3/10/14. It is impossible to research any item without having it in one's possession. I contacted you as soon as possible, which was 33 days after I received the piece in question!I only ask that you rectify this situation honorably...But based upon your reply, I can only assume, you will not honor my request to reimburse me for the $428 dollar difference between the actual value of that bogus lot and its' true value, so what I intend on doing is the following:It is much less expensive for you to settle with me, now but if you prefer, I will instruct council to draw up the necessary legal papers to pursue my rights, as the law dictates, opposed to what any contact states, which by the way; I never agreed to, or signed, your contract concerning those auction terms at any point before or after that auction...If I do not hear from you concerning my request, with a time table of reimbursement of $428 to settle this matter, please be advise I will pursue every legal channel to recover all the money that I paid to you for the lot, the buyers premium, shipping, plus damages.Go ahead and take your chances on you receiving a favorable determination based upon items # 12 + 14 that you submitted, if you like!But if you carefully check California's and Massachusetts' statute of limitations on fraud or misrepresentation they supersede any contact that violates those laws.Example: If you have a contact with a person who agrees that you can put a gun to his head and pull the trigger as long as it it is done before a certain date: that would still be a crime of murder that you would be prosecuted for if you did so.Your contact does not supersede the laws that governs fraud or misrepresentation in either state mentioned.What exactly are you going to do concerning my request?Are you refusing based upon the mentioned contract?My request follows for the fifth time.I WANT YOU TO PAY ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE [redacted] EXPERTS APPRAISAL OF THE PIECE BEING APPROXIMATELY $600 AND WHAT I PAID YOU; BEING $1028. That DIFFERENCE being $428.I read over your "terms of sale" and found nothing that mentioned fraudulent provenance or incorrect titles, on your behalf, as being anything that I agreed to..I wrote to [redacted] weeks ago concerning lot #12 that I bought in his February 22nd Auction.This is the last communication from me you will receive, if you do not reply, I will take legal action to rectify your misrepresentation of the provenance and title of that lot in question.The provenance you stated; being from the "Andy Warhol Collection," in [redacted] 1988 New York Auction, item number 2523, is either fraudulent or, at best, incorrect. In addition; that lot #12 was listed in your auction records, description, and invoice as "skull cracker," which is incorrect, as it is not a weapon, but rather a ceremonial dance wand.Based upon those facts I expect the difference between the value of that lot, without authentic Warhol provenance, and the actual price I paid.A [redacted] Native American expert assumes the "Warhol" label is fake based upon his past experience with similar falsified labels, and put the actual value of that lot 12 at $600 because there is no authentic Warhol provenance.The following is what I wrote to [redacted], on April 14th 2014, and this is what I still expect from you:YOUR AUCTION LOT, IN QUESTION #12, DID NOT ORIGINATE IN WARHOLS COLLECTION AND YOUR DESCRIPTION WAS INCORRECT.I WAS THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER ON LOT #12 IN YOUR AUCTION ON FEBRUARY 22ND 2014.YOUR AUCTION DESCRIPTION OF THAT LOT STATED IT ORIGINATED IN [redacted] 1988 ANDY WARHOL COLLECTION:"Native American Skull Cracker, c. 1880. Long leather wrapped handle decorated with beaded straps, fringed leather hide and red horse hair at the [redacted] end; consignor purchased at [redacted] from the Andy Warhol Collection; framed and protected in a hanging plexiglass case. 37 in. high x 14 in. wide."I CONTACTED [redacted] IN NEW YORK AND LOT # 2523 IN WARHOL'S COLLECTION AUCTION IN 1988 THAT WAS LABELED AS SUCH WAS YOUR LOT #12 BUT THE [redacted] DESCRIPTION DOES NOT MATCH [redacted] THE ITEM THAT YOU OFFERED.THE PIECE WAS LATER EXAMINED BY A NATIVE AMERICAN EXPERT AT [redacted] AND HE FOUND THAT PIECE TO BE AUTHENTIC BUT MENTIONED FREQUENTLY FAKE LABELS THAT INDICATE THE PIECE ORIGINATED IN THE WARHOL COLLECTION HAVE BEEN USED IN THE PAST TO INFLATE THE VALUE OF A PIECE. [redacted] EXPERT PUT THE VALUE OF YOUR LOT #12 AT $500 - $700 SUSPECTING THE WARHOL LABEL IS FAKE.I PAID $1028 TO YOU FOR THAT PIECE.I WANT YOU TO PAY ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE [redacted] EXPERTS APPRAISAL OF THE PIECE BEING APPROXIMATELY $600 AND WHAT I PAID YOU; BEING $1028. THE DIFFERENCE IS $428SINCERELY[redacted]EMAIL: [redacted]WEB SITE:[redacted]AUTHORED BOOKS: "THE LAST FILIPINO HEAD HUNTERS," "SACRED JOURNEY: THE GANGES TO THE HIMALAYAS," "TEN SOUTHEAST ASIAN TRIBES FROM FIVE COUNTRIES" AND "PERSPECTIVES: INTERVIEWS ANSEL ADAMS, JERRY UELSMANN, RALPH GIBSON, AND ROBERT HEINECKEN." COVER "SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE" 2014, DVD DOCUMENTARIES: "CHRISTO: THE UMBRELLA PROJECT," "KEITH HARING: ARTIST AT WORK" AND "NAM JUNE PAIK." [redacted]'S MUSEUM COLLECTIONS: THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART; NEW YORK 2011, THE FIELD MUSEUM; CHICAGO 2013, THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART (S.C.75.123); NEW YORK 1975, THE MUSEUM OF MODERN ART; SAN FRANCISCO: (SAN FRANCISCO ART INSTITUTE PHOTOGRAPHY PORTFOLIO) 1975, THE WHITNEY MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART; (EAST VILLAGE ART SCENE DOCUMENTARY), NEW YORK 1985, THE OAKLAND MUSEUM; OAKLAND CALIFORNIA 1973.

Evidence and facts below for seller misconduct, fabricated description failing to accurately and truthfully depict the item sold, and unrealistic amount of money for falsifying claims of storage and loss of profit.
I placed several bids on Fontaine's Auction Gallery's pocket watches that I thought were gold on November 2014. The seller failed to place full description of these items and misrepresented these items by writing 14k GF on description. The items are not gold filled or gold full like the abbreviation means. Abbreviations that have multiple meanings misrepresent items without the full name. During the auction, the seller refused to negotiate or resolve this dispute for misrepresentation. I tried to retract my bids several times during the auction. Now the plaintiff still demands an unrealistic profit and storage fees( storage that takes up less than 3 by 3 inches of space) with interest in amount of 3,220 for items that cost a total of $725. Furthermore, worth of the watches is even less due to misrepresentation of description and lack of gold. I had offered fair amount for my mistaken bids. Plaintiff currently has items in his possession and refuses to accept my payment of buyer's fees and profit lost of $152.
Upon my first conversation with the buyer, I apologized for my placed bid due the aforementioned reason and asked to retract my bids. I also sent emails during the auction and offered to pay buyer premium for his profit loss and give the items to previous bidders or to resale. The seller refused and stated he will hold the items and charge storage fees of space that takes up less than 3 by 3 inches until I pay. He also stated he will take me to court and demand $5,000. He then kept the watches in his possession for over 200 days and refused to sell to previous bidders and also resale. In addition I tried to contact the seller multiple times to resolve the dispute and he refused to negotiate.
In the filed claim, the plaintiff is now asking for his lost profits. I offered to pay buyer premium and for him to give to previous bidders. He would have collected double the profit by accepting my offer, but he refused and demanded an unreasonable amount of money due to distress and fabricated storage space. He also refused to solve the problem through a General Attorney that offered him his buyer's fees and profit loss and to even pay for the item's original amount. He has refused all offers and is still asking for over $2000 for storage fees of pocket watches that take a few inches of space.
This unfair business and deceptive practice by Fontaine's Auction Gallery is unacceptable. We also contacted Berkshire meditation service to try to resolve this dispute but failed. I had offered fair amount for my mistaken bids. Plaintiff currently has items in his possession and refuses to accept my payment for items 725, buyer's fees and profit loss of152.