Mecum Auction lawsuits have covered nearly every category of dispute a large collector car auctioneer can generate: buyers claiming they were sold counterfeit vehicles, an automaker suing over a resale, a consignor fight that Mecum itself brought to quiet title, and a pending personal injury case. Across these matters, one document keeps steering the outcome — Mecum’s bidder registration agreement, with its “as is” sale terms, non-reliance clause, Wisconsin forum selection, and language making the auctioneer’s judgment “final and non-appealable.”
Pardo v. Mecum Auction: The Counterfeit Corvette
The most extensively litigated case against Mecum came out of the 2011 Bloomington Gold Corvette Auction in St. Charles, Illinois. Isaac Pardo bid $68,500 plus a $4,110 auctioneer’s commission on what was advertised as a rare black 1967 Corvette coupe from a collection owned by William Mullis. Experts later determined the car was built on a damaged 1964 Corvette frame, assembled with parts from multiple model years, and carried counterfeit VIN and trim tags.1GovInfo. Pardo v. Mecum Auction Inc., No. 12 C 08410
Pardo sued in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of contract, and seeking rescission. He also alleged Mecum delayed the title for months and routed it through a third party called “Billy Bob’s Fast Expensive Cars” in a way that bypassed him in the chain of title.2vLex. Pardo v. Mecum Auction Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 703
The registration form sank the fraud theory. Pardo had signed an agreement acknowledging that he was buying “as is” and relying “entirely upon his own or his agent’s examination and opinion.” In December 2014, Judge John J. Tharp Jr. ruled that this non-reliance language barred the fraud and misrepresentation claims under Illinois law and dismissed those counts with prejudice. The breach of contract and rescission claims survived at that stage, based on the 14-day title delivery window in the bidder agreement.3Calculators.law. Pardo v. Mecum Auction Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 703
They did not survive long. On March 31, 2017, the court granted summary judgment for Mecum on the remaining counts, reading the bidder agreement to require only that Mecum “process” the title within 14 days rather than deliver it directly to Pardo. Mecum prevailed on every claim, even though the car was demonstrably not what had been advertised.1GovInfo. Pardo v. Mecum Auction Inc., No. 12 C 08410
Alexander v. Mecum Auction: The Fake VW Samba
A similar authenticity case ended very differently. In Alexander v. Mecum Auction Inc., filed in Los Angeles, the buyer alleged that Mecum sold a fake 1959 Volkswagen 23-Window Samba bus. The matter settled before trial. Mecum refunded the $150,000 purchase price, reimbursed the buyer for an annual membership, a guest pass for a February 2018 auction, and towing expenses. Mecum and co-defendant Villa Trade LLC also paid the buyer’s legal expenses.4Auto Fraud Legal Center. Alexander v. Mecum Auction Inc., et al. – Los Angeles
Ford Motor Company v. Mecum Auctions: The Ford GT Resale Case
In May 2018, Mecum sold a silver 2017 Ford GT with just seven miles on the odometer at its Indianapolis auction. The car brought $1,815,000 including fees. Ford Motor Company filed suit the same day, arguing the sale violated a contract term Ford imposed on all GT buyers barring resale of the $450,000 supercar during the first 24 months of ownership. Ford said the restriction was meant to keep the limited-production car with “true fans” rather than speculators.5Jalopnik. Ford Is Suing the Auction House That Resold a Ford GT
Ford sought a temporary restraining order to stop the sale. Judge Heather Welch of the Indiana Commercial Court denied it, finding that because the car had been consigned by a secondary owner, Michael J. Flynn Jr. of Hollywood Wheels, rather than the original purchaser John W. Miller, Ford could not show Mecum had tortiously interfered with the Ford-Miller contract. Ford also failed to show irreparable harm.6Ford Authority. May Auction of a Ford GT Remains Contentious
The parties settled after the sale, with final court approval in January 2019. The terms gave Ford significant control over future GT consignments at Mecum:7Hagerty Media. Ford Mecum Settlement Details
- Mecum will not accept a Ford GT for consignment if it is still owned by the original purchaser and inside the two-year sales moratorium.
- For any Ford GT consigned by a secondary owner during that two-year window, Mecum must consult Ford and cannot proceed without Ford’s consent.
- Financial proceeds from the settlement were donated to the Ford Motor Company Fund.
Mecum v. Kristiansen: The Motorcycle Title Dispute
Mecum has also been the plaintiff. Ejnar Kristiansen, a Danish citizen, consigned five motorcycles to Mecum for a January 2020 Las Vegas auction: a 1978 Moto Guzzi LeMans, a 2001 Ducati MH 900E, a 1976 MV Augusta 750 S America, and two 1950s-era Nimbus 750 models. He never produced certificates of title. When the sale day arrived without title documents, the sales could not close. Mecum refunded the winning bidders as a goodwill gesture and moved the motorcycles to its storage facility in Walworth County, Wisconsin.8FindLaw. Mecum Auction Inc. v. One 1978 Moto Guzzi LeMans
Mecum filed a declaratory judgment action to quiet title, naming the motorcycles themselves as defendants under in rem jurisdiction. Kristiansen intervened but eventually stopped communicating with the court and failed to sign responses to Mecum’s discovery. Under Wisconsin law, that failure meant requests for admission were deemed conclusively established, including that he was not the owner and had never held title.9FGPPR. Michael Sever Obtains Summary Judgment for Auto Auctioneer
The circuit court granted summary judgment to Mecum, and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed in October 2022. Applying a four-factor ownership test (possession, title, control, and financial stake), the appellate court found Mecum had exclusive possession and control, had incurred storage costs and lost sales opportunities, and that no valid title existed for any other party. Title was quieted in Mecum’s favor, allowing the company to sell the bikes to offset its losses.8FindLaw. Mecum Auction Inc. v. One 1978 Moto Guzzi LeMans
Sobel v. Mecum Auction: A Pending Personal Injury Case
Michael Sobel sued Mecum Auction Inc., along with Daniel Valdivieso, Ronald Stone, and Certifleet LLC, in Florida state court on June 20, 2025. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida the following month. It is classified as a personal injury action; the specific allegations are not detailed in available public filings.10Justia Dockets. Sobel v. Mecum Auction Inc. et al
As of early 2026, the case is in discovery. Mecum filed a motion for summary judgment on one count in November 2025 but withdrew it the following month, and the court denied it without prejudice. The plaintiff dropped a mental anguish claim in September 2025. A mediation conference was set for May 2026, and jury trial is scheduled for the term beginning April 5, 2027.10Justia Dockets. Sobel v. Mecum Auction Inc. et al
The 2025 Monterey Gavel Dispute (No Suit Filed)
The most-publicized recent controversy has not produced litigation. During Monterey Car Week on August 16, 2025, classic car dealer Bobby Adams was the high bidder at $31,000 on a 1956 Lincoln Continental Mark II Sport Coupe. According to Adams and video of the event, the auctioneer dropped the gavel and announced the car as “sold,” then accepted a new bid of $32,000. The car ultimately reached $33,000.11The Autopian. Big Car Auction House Mecum Allegedly Reopened Bidding After It Declared a Car as Sold
Mecum COO Sam Murtaugh responded that the auctioneer had heard a bid called before the hammer fell and exercised his discretion to continue the bidding. Mecum cited California Commercial Code § 2328, which mirrors the UCC and states that a sale by auction is complete “when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner,” while permitting the auctioneer to reopen bidding if a bid is made “while the hammer is falling.”12The Drive. Longtime Bidder Says He Got Screwed by Mecum13Cornell Law Institute. UCC § 2-328 – Sale by Auction The company also pointed to its bidder’s agreement, which states the auctioneer’s judgment in bidding disputes is “final and non-appealable.”14Mecum Auctions. General Bidder Rules
Adams said multiple lawyers offered to sue Mecum pro bono, but as of late August 2025 he had filed nothing. “I haven’t made a move yet,” he told The Drive. “I’m not dying to sue anyone.” He said he preferred to share his video and consider launching his own auction platform.12The Drive. Longtime Bidder Says He Got Screwed by Mecum No court has ruled on the incident.
Why the Bidder Agreement Keeps Deciding These Cases
Anyone thinking about suing Mecum runs into the same document. Every participant signs the bidder registration agreement before bidding, and its terms have shaped outcome after outcome:14Mecum Auctions. General Bidder Rules
- All lots are sold “as is, where is,” with no warranties from Mecum regarding condition, genuineness, value, or quality.
- When a winning bid cannot be determined with certainty, the auctioneer’s judgment is “final and non-appealable.”
- Disputes must be brought in the Circuit Court of Walworth County, Wisconsin, regardless of where the auction took place. Bidders waive inconvenient-forum objections and waive jury trial.
- Bidders at California events may submit disputes to arbitration before one of three arbitrators identified by Mecum.
- Bidders release Mecum from claims related to lot descriptions and agree to reimburse the company for legal expenses if they bring such claims.
The non-reliance language was decisive in Pardo, defeating fraud claims about a car the plaintiff proved was counterfeit. The auctioneer-finality clause is central to Mecum’s position in the Adams gavel dispute. And the Walworth County forum clause is why a consignor from Denmark ended up litigating in a Wisconsin circuit court. For any buyer or consignor evaluating a potential claim, these provisions, not the underlying facts, tend to define what is realistically available.