MEETING WITH OLIVIER STOCKER

OS = Olivier Stocker, Spink CEO
WB = William Barrett

OS: Hi.

WB: Hi, Olivier.

OS: How are you? Good to see you. Please have a seat. Could I get you a glass of water or something?

WB: Sure, why not?

OS: [to assistant?] A glass of water? Thank you.
[to WB] Yeah. It’s a bit of a crazy day, because I am leaving tonight.

WB: Yeah, me too, so —

OS: And you fly back to Canada, or…?

WB: London, and Canada.

OS: Yeah.

WB: Yeah.

OS: And were you at the Stack’s sale yesterday?

WB: I sat in for it. But Chinese coins are not my field.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And so I can’t even —

OS: How was it? Because I am not, uh —

WB: The biggest coin, that opened at 280,000, it didn’t sell.

OS: Yeah.

WB: Some of the ones that were offered much lower, they went up to almost 200,000.

OS: Yeah.

WB: But I was only there for a small section.

OS: Yeah. And the market, as we know, is slow.

WB: The market, everybody says the market is way down. And everybody at the show said that April was far better.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: And they didn’t expect a better result than that. And hopefully they will all come back in December and your next show. So…

OS: Yeah, the market is terrible. It’s everything[?] for us. We have some good results, but y’know on average, everything which is low-grade–

WB: Nobody wants it.

OS: Common, nobody wants it.

WB: Yeah.

OS: We sold some Sarawak, though, for a great price, because it were, y’know, super good-looking, high-grade, y’know.

WB: Yeah.

OS: And that’s no[?], but the minute you move from exceptional, y’know, it’s cheap price, and if you start too high, we’ve seen it with Stack’s and so on–

WB: You scare them away.

OS: Same thing for us. We had a few coins, y’know, _________________ [inaudible] this time, but —

WB: Right now it’s difficult to know what a good price is for a Chinese coin, because the market —

OS: We had a coin that — we had one coin, y’know, __________ junk, opening was $650,001.

WB: Right.

OS: And I asked the guys, are you sure we will sell that coin? And he says, yeah, we understand it because, y’know, it just fetched three weeks ago in Shanghai 1.2 million.

WB: Right.

OS: Okay? But first of all, is the price in Shanghai a real price?

WB: Yeah, exactly.

OS: And, y’know, so I[?] said, I[?] don’t[?] have a feeling it’s going to sell. You have four biddings? They[?] said, yeah, I think it should sell, boss[?], don’t worry. And of course it didn’t sell.

WB: Yeah. No, if you think it’s going to sell it’s because somebody told you that they’re very interested in it, and you have an inside track, so. But there was a huge boom. During Covid was a fantastic time, unexpectedly, and a lot of turnover, and that was very good. And the last few months, and the last year in general, came off. But it was such a good time that nobody can complain.

OS: Right now we have to go through a few months of —

WB: I’ve been through a lot of bumps, and high interest — interest rates are still nothing, compared to 1981 when I was paying 22% plus two points over prime. Then this is nothing. And there is a lot of money around. It’s just that suddenly people are more cautious.

OS: Yeah, _________________ [unclear]. That’s a problem.

WB: But I saw once yesterday, they went from I think 80 to 180, something like that. So what that tells us, I don’t know. But if it were banknotes I would know better. But for China coins I always ignored them.

OS: So, anyway. So, we’ve got a little problem in front of us. And, y’know, we’ve met a few times, but we don’t know each other very well. Y’know. But I’ve been in the business 25 years. I was a banker before —

WB: Since 1998, I believe.

OS: And I’m not a bad guy or a crazy guy. I’m a rational businessman. So, what I suggest in the next few minutes, what we do, is that this conversation we are having now is totally without prejudice, so whatever we say to each other can never be used in court. So we can try to find a solution. And then if you want to go to court or whatever, I understand, y’know. But I think it’s good to give us a chance. If you agree. The chance to speak as normal human beings, not lawyer up, to find a solution. And then we do the discussion, y’know, openly. We don’t have to think legal, y’know. See if we can find a solution, what can be done and so on, and — I don’t know if you agree with that idea?

WB: If you want to have today’s conversation as off the record, then I hear you, and that is the understanding.

OS: I think it makes sense. Then we can write to each other without lawyers and being nasty[?] with each other.

WB: In terms of any — as you suggested, any settlement discussion, yes. In terms of my position as it is, it’s my position —

OS: Of course. And my position, too.

WB: And it is not — it will be stated here. And it is not a settlement discussion, it is my position, so I don’t consider that to be off the record.

OS: No no no, yeah, no no. But you’ve got your position, I’ve got my position. And the thing is, y’know, we are not going to move. Because we both thought about what we think, and so on. So, as I said in my two emails I sent in _______[?], is, y’know, for us, y’know, there was some work performed, there was, y’know, there was a motion when we produced the catalogue, we had customers flying in from Ceylon and some, so — for us, y’know, I feel we are owed something for the cancellation, and so on. And of course you can see the fees have been ratcheting up and so on. My view is that we have to find a solution which is fair, but is bad enough that we both can live with it. And then move on and think about other things. That’s what I would like to do. Now, if you say, Olivier I want to pay zero, I will sue you, and you personally for theft, or whatever you want to do, that’s fine, it’s your, your thing. Same thing for us, we’ve got contract, we got, y’know, everything we do is based on contracts and terms of agreement.

[WB COMMENT: Note: Stocker here acknowledges that our dealings must be based on our Agreement, which I agree as well. The original Agreement appears below. As can be seen it provides for no expenses or anything else that Mr. Stocker wishes to claim.]

[OS continued:] And y’know, we can also say, look, y’know, you owe us all these hundreds of thousands of pounds and so on, and that’s it. But maybe there is a smarter way. To say, look, let’s agree something. And let’s not fight, y’know, because you have other things to do, I’ve got other things to do, and it just, for me, y’know, my question is, y’know, you know that there is, y’know, a fee which is due to us, y’know. Are you ready to do a little something, so we can return, y’know, because we have cash I understand here, and we also have some collection in London, that we have been insuring for many years and so on. So that’s what we have. So basically we have the cost of insurance, and the cost of cancelling your sale in motion. Y’know, it’s a huge cost, but y’know, could we find an agreement where, y’know —

WB: I’ll deal with the Hong Kong situation first. One: Kelvin came to Spink to Spink China, he contacted me, he said I am now running Spink China, a Hong Kong company, it is entirely separate from the London operation of Spink & Son. And if I came with him, that he would make sure that nothing from London, and he had your assurance that you would never interfere with any matter to do with Spink China. And I ignored him for two months or three months, and my wife finally said, he emailed you, you should be polite, just answer him. And from that, with all his assurances that you would never interfere or make any claim, that anything to do with Ceylon as he stated to me would never influence anything here. So I proceeded on that basis. But ultimately the moment he was gone, Sue, chartered accountant, your senior officer, she said yes she’s sending the money, and then you — I have to presume you — blocked her. But this, it’s a Hong Kong company, it’s a Hong Kong person —

OS: OK, first of all let me correct things. First of all, Kelvin never run the Spink China business. Never ever. He was our Head of Numismatics, OK? Reporting to Sue, and to me. Number one, he never run Spink China. Number two: Spink China, you’re a smart guy, investor and so on, is 100% subsidiary — you can look at any account — is 100% subsidiary of Spink London. So to say that it is _________ [?] does not __________[?] to Spink London, is nonsensical. Just to correct the facts. Y’know.

WB: That Spink China is a Hong Kong company. If another company or another individual makes a claim against it, fine, go to court, get a court order, and if the court agrees they will issue a writ, and then you can claim the money, unless it’s appealed. So, so on that basis it is a Hong Kong person’s affairs, and it has nothing to do with London, it doesn’t matter who owns it. It’s —

OS: _____ it’s a problem[?] for me to understand. But when Kelvin says has nothing to do with Spink London, is erroneous, because it’s a 100% subsidiary, y’know, I’m the CEO of London, and I’m the CEO here. How can he say? Y’know. But if it was misrepresented or whatever at the time, or misunderstood, I don’t know. But I’m just stating the facts, it’s always been 100% subsidiary.

WB: I don’t know who owns Spink & Son London, and I don’t know who owns Spink China. But Spink China is a Hong Kong company, as a person.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And to say that any money in Spink China can be sent somewhere else, no. And I was quoted a clause from some document that I have never seen, and certainly never agreed to, saying that anything owed by one Spink related company to another one can be seized —

OS: Yeah. ________ [? obscured].

WB: Kelvin has never seen that, he’s never heard of it.

OS: Sorry?

WB: Kelvin has never seen that and never heard of it, and neither have I. So it’s a false document in relation to me. So the money from Hong Kong, you’ve chosen to seize it, and that’s where we stand. And there’s no discussion that. Turning to London, you — I don’t know if you have your original copy of the signed loan agreement of 2010 October, but that agreement, you wrote it, Barnaby modified it, my copy has Barnaby’s modifications on it, and I live by the terms. There is nothing about expenses, late payment, it is a very simple — for a merchant banker, it is a remarkably simple and non-comprehensive —

OS: Yeah, we’ve all ______[discussed?] the signed letter to consent[?]** an agreement, y’know. This is a signed letter specifically — I don’t have the file here, but it was yours, I didn’t know we would be getting into[?] this sort of[?], if I signed ______[?]. But from what I remember having read back in June, it is what is called a signed letter, which is always in relation to our consignment agreement. And, y’know, and the terms and conditions, when you do business with us, just like every auction house, the terms and conditions apply.

WB: Right.

OS: And this, you might disagree, or whatever —

WB: No, I don’t agree with your interpretation. But there are terms, some of them are irrelevant to anything that happened between us, some of them are more relevant, but the one thing’s for sure, it’s there’s nothing about expenses, nothing about what happened if I went over the three month deadline, which I admit that I did, and therefor I paid every amount claimed on the day of the morning of the auction, the Ceylon planned auction, I paid every cent, including 16,000 pounds that she could not identify. But I said, fine, I’ll pay that too, because there can’t be any disagreement. And so the money was paid, and the collateral then, legally, is no longer collateral, it’s simply in storage with you until I claim it. A few minutes later Barnaby Faull confirmed to me that he will return everything to me, that it’s all mine, but he’s leaving on vacation so he can’t do it that same day. So when he gets back it’ll be sent. Subsequent to that I didn’t hear more from him. I heard from you and your counsel, demanding expenses. Y’know, if you had asked me for expenses, the world would be a different place —

OS: ______[?] [obscured]

WB: But, no, let me finish here. But you didn’t. You seized my material. Once you seized my material, we are in a different relationship. That is absolute bad faith.

OS: Remember, I don’t have a good memory[?], because I looked at it when _____ ______[?] back in June, y’know, and I looked at it with my COO, Mira Poku —

WB: Right.

OS: Y’know, there are ________[?] between you and me specifically where I said, let’s try to find a solution. Although I did try to find a solution. I said, let’s have a chat. So that’s why I think it’s good we have a chat. It might lead to nothing. But basically, y’know, for me, y’know, there is this cancelled auction where we produced the catalogue with all _______[?]. There must be —

WB: Yeah. No question you produced the catalogue. There no provision —

OS: And the Bank of Ceylon flew in. We had to repay his flight, and so on. So. What I’m saying is, y’know, now, we can discuss the quantum. But a lot of work has been put in, we have the embarrassment of cancelling a sale, y’know. There must be something, I mean, I am sure you are a fair person, there must be something, y’know, that you, you would accept to do. Maybe you say —

WB: If — Well, that’s what I’m — Turning back the clock, had you immediately released the property to me and carried it through, and I could take it back to Canada, then we would be in a situation where you are saying, we think we are due expenses, and will you pay them voluntarily, here is what we are saying, we claim 48,000 pounds, we’re willing to take 25,000 pounds, will you agree to that voluntarily? And if I say no, then you are free to sue me, and the court may see your way, or it may say in the contract there is no provision, therefore you get nothing and next time write a different contract, if that’s what– if you’re doing it again. But when you seize my property and you say —

OS: I don’t think we seized your property —

WB: Absolutely, I mean I cannot —

OS: I mean, I don’t _______ [obscured] —

WB: Read the lawyer’s letters.

OS: Yeah. OK. So again, because I am here, I was not expecting this meeting, and y’know I looked at it three or four months ago —

WB: Y’know, if I want to leave the room, and you press a button and the door locks, the law regards the situation as totally different. Then, it’s a form of kidnapping. And when you seize my property, my mental state changes, and the legal status very much changes. But if you had asked I would have been happy to discuss it with you.

OS: I think we’ve asked, because we know that, y’know, we never said, it’s not the culture of Spink, it’s not my culture. We send a legal letter if we have a discussion, and the discussion is open.

WB: If you take the view that you can seize my property and hold it, in effect, as I understand it, for ransom, no, then you’ve changed the relationship between us. And that will never —

OS: I am sorry you feel that way.

WB: It is clear. But I have it from Barnaby Faull, in writing: your property is now yours, but I cannot give it to you today.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And then, you — Then, you said you’re seizing the property[*], and I won’t get it back until I pay whatever you demand. And the lawyers confirm it three times. And, and — I sued Christie’s in 1990. I spent six-hundred-and-something dollars suing them.

[*SEE STOCKER EMAIL STATING TERMS DEMANDED FOR RETURN.]

OS: 600,000 dollars?

WB: 600,000 dollars. In 1990 dollars. Because they simply issued– they printed a false warranty about the material.

OS: Yeah.

WB: They said there was no more, and there was.

OS: Yeah.

WB: So I sued them. It was a year and a half lost time for me. In the end they settled. My lawyers, on the second proposal from them, my lawyers said it’s not going to get any better than this, so grab it.

OS: I am aware of your reputation, that you’re a very tough cookie. ______ [obscured]

WB: But if they had said to me, our warranty is false, and we were only partly informed about it or whatever they want to say, but we’re going to give you a million d– I spent $1,565,000 at their auction. On an estimate of 500 to 700. And the day before, two days before the sale they had a meeting, and they thought that nothing would sell, that nobody was going to bid, nobody. But I came into some money ten days earlier, and was convinced that this was a real opportunity, and bid like crazy. But there was more, and when there was more, they should have simply said, we’ll take it all back or we’ll renegotiate it, and we’ll give you big credit in the next sale, where everything in the next sale — People made millions off of the next sale. So, but once somebody says no —

OS: ________ [obscured]

WB: — we have you on a petard, and you’re out of luck.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And they kept all the material, and the money I paid, and said, y’know, we’re going to put more screws on you. So I got counsel. Yeah, it was over, somewhere $625,000. But that’s my personality. So with the material, Barnaby says it’s yours but please, I’ve been working like a mad dog for months, so many sales, so many lots, beautiful catalogues, great, but let me go for vacation, and then it goes back. If you had released it and said, Bill, we had these expenses, and the contract does not cover anything of this nature, but to keep on a good relationship will you pay this, or some part or major part, then I’m listening.

OS: Yeah.

WB: But you didn’t.

OS: No. But I think you know, ____took a reasonable [? obscured], if you look at the documentation, that we would have gone strong, that we would never have gone to the lawyers, if you would have dialogue[?] and you said, oh I am happy to pay something. I think the view was you refused to hear anything, you say I will not pay a penny, and it went immediately into the _______ [obscured]

WB: Yeah. The moment you seized my property, our relationship — I came to Spink in 1966, when you never heard of a banknote.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And I have a relationship, very active relationship, onward from 1970-71, I came many times.

OS: Yeah.

WB: But when you seize my property, it’s like seizing somebody’s daughter and saying, OK —

OS: Yeah.

WB: — we’re gonna do things to her unless you pay up.

OS: This, y’know, I reserve my views on the seizing of the property. But — Because you’ve never — as far as I know you have never asked for the return of the property.

WB: Yeah, Barnaby — I asked Barnaby, it’s in writing. And he will testif–

OS: You never asked — in twelve years you never asked anybody to say, look, y’know —

WB: It was clear: if I don’t do what you want, then I won’t get the property back. The lawyers made that very clear. I presume —

OS: I will check on it. Anyway —

WB: There are three letters from lawyers. I presume that you reviewed what the lawyers were saying and that you did not disagree.

OS: Yeah, yeah. I did all that three month’s back. So. That’s why– Basically at the time my view was, here we have, y’know, what we are basically invoking is the right of set-off, y’know, in terms of auctions, like every auction house —

WB: No.

OS: If you owe ____________ [? unclear] and so on, and we have a credit, and you don’t pay, we have always the right to set off.

WB: No. The contract is explicit as a special case, and I followed the terms of the contract, to the extent that there were terms.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And if I had been asked —

OS: Yeah.

WB: — we would be best of friends now. But when somebody says, I’ve got your material, I’ve got you like this, and you have to do what I tell you, then–

OS: I know, we —

WB: –then my personality changes.

OS: I know. Me too. Me too. So, actually, y’know, I’m like you, y’know, I’m a — I like to do things nicely, but when things turn sour, y’know, we go to–

WB: Since 1966 I am the best customer Spink ever had.

OS: Yeah, and a _________ [? unclear] a relationship, of course. I mean, y’know. Of course now I am aware. But y’know–

WB: But I would say also that your vendors, who sold their material through you, supposedly for the best prices. But with me locked out, they were damaged in many of their consignments. So you can, you can take —

OS: You were bidding at Spink?

WB: No.

OS: You’ve been bidding at bit[?] at Spink.

WB: No.

OS: You’ve never bought anything at —

WB: I had someone buy a proof note from a recent sale — not in my name — because I wanted to see that — no, because I was sure it was not legitimate. And it is part of a very large series. So, for your sake, if these notes are not what they purport to be, it won’t be good news for you, because you may plan over a period to make a lot of nice commission for what looks like a lot of nice material. But they’re not original in my view, and I am going to get a report from the world’s greatest paper specialist, saying this paper never existed, when these notes were purportedly–

OS: What is this? A Hong Kong banknote? Or —

WB: No. There are Hong Kong banknotes, but I don’t– Elaine has seen them all and she knows all of it. I have a bit of information that I got from her, and from Kelvin. But basically these are purportedly albums covering the whole period of Perkins Bacon’s banknote printing from 1818 when they came to England to — I don’t know what the last date was, I think there are notes in the 1920’s. But as far as I can tell, these proofs — which are not beautifully made and on paper that never existed a hundred years earlier, I think that they were made when the company was bankrupt in the mid-1930’s. They were going to destroy all the plates on hand because the company was being broken up. The archive went to a stamp dealer, the machinery went to someone who scrapped most of it, and the name. And I think they took an impression of every plate or die that they had, as a record of what was being destroyed. And then they melted the plates. So, for me — for you, you will think that if I publish this, which I will, that I am harming you because you expected good profits, and logically if the material — I only know a fraction about the material. There are twelve albums. So you can inform yourself with Elaine, and you will know immediately more–

OS: _____ anyway. What I would like to do is, we never ______ [obscured]–

WB: Sorry?

OS: It is third party property[?], and so, it’s — it’s —

WB: But this is from a private family, which she didn’t say but I believe it is, and it is something that has been handed down since I don’t know when. But it appears, if you don’t know what, what — you know there are many reprints of stamps in the —

OS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

WB: — in the second half of the 19th century. In banknotes, there are. But these to me are reprints made in the 20th century, and they’re made for a purpose. And they’re made because they’re destroying the plate, and here’s a record of the plate they destroyed. And they would have been kept in a special file. If there was ever a legal question of printing of notes for a bank or a company or anything else, then they would be able to show, we destroyed this plate on this day in 1935 or ’36.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: But the reason why I’m doing you a favour, in my view, is because if you sell them and you’re guaranteeing them, and you say that they are genuine and original, and they’re not, then later on there can be a huge fall-back on you. And it would have been much better if you had never had any commission at all.

OS: Yeah. Well, we will see. I don’t know — we will see.

WB: Kelvin said there are thirteen from Hong Kong. Elaine when I asked her once, by chance, she said no, there — I think she said three. So then, I don’t know. But I sold one like this through Spink China for 900,000 Hong Kong. And if there are thirteen of them and they are sold for anything like that — which at the moment I don’t think they would be — but they’re going to sell for something significant. And if in the end you’re being sued to take them back because they’re not original, or whatever the legal status question may be, it will make a mess for you. So it is bad news, but it’s like being told you have cancer; you’re better off knowing right away at the beginning than putting it off. So this is a separate matter, but I am mentioning it because I don’t communicate now with Elaine. I wish her well, I heard she loves banknotes. She doesn’t have a lot of experience. But because she loves the series, she’ll learn. And Arnas, he has no knowledge about banknotes, and he may be a quick study, but it — the amount he — Barnaby, Barnaby didn’t love banknotes but he knew if he’d seen something, ten of this and it’s a hot country, and here’s three more, then probably they’re worth money. So one painted model of a Saudi note, he didn’t know what it was. He thought it was worth 500 pounds. With it was a Belgian model from the same period, 1945, and it brought I think 500 pounds. And this one, in the end I don’t know what the estimate was. But the second– third high bidder dropped out at 20, 21,000 pounds on it. I don’t know who that person was. And then Barnaby had an Irishman who lived in a hotel in Ireland bid on it. He pushed me up. I paid 53,000 pounds for it. So. I didn’t know what it was. I only researched it later and figured out what it must be. So, when there are rare and important things, I made a big difference in Spink sales.

OS: Yeah, of course. We know you —

WB: But as I say, for your vendors, they’ve been deprived of a lot of revenue. If you want to deprive yourself of revenue by not letting me bid, that’s entirely your decision. I don’t think it’s a good one, but —

OS: We have never prevented you to bid _________ [?]

WB: I was — No, I was dropped off the mailing list and —

OS: No, no.

WB: Yeah.

OS: No, because you were dealing with — I mean, don’t _____[?] the thing. You were dealing with — If you were selling with Kelvin, you went off the mailing list. If you were not dropped off the mailing list–

WB: No, I never got the London catalogues. With Kelvin I got catalogues because I consigned, so I —

OS: Yeah. It’s a thing, if you don’t buy —

WB: But that’s Spink China.

OS: After a while, if you don’t buy —

WB: No. No, no.

OS: — we cut. But you were never off, no. It’s called the NFB, No Further Business.

WB: Right.

OS: So if you were No Further Business, you would have never consigned to Spink. So you were not dropped off.

WB: But what if–

OS: You decided not to bid at Spink because you had issues–

WB: No. If I bid at Spink and spent money, then you would seize the money, saying I owed it for something else. So that makes it imposs– But I think Barnaby will testify that I was blocked from bidding. So– But that’s — you lost revenue, and your customers lost — On 99 percent of all the things that come in your auction, I have no interest. I only want special things, and for special things I have a fantastic collection. I sat the longest with my hand up. I want to pay more and get the good.

OS: You were never blocked from bidding because you were selling. So it’s– Anyway–

WB: Well, here we are.

OS: It’s the _____ [obscured]

WB: So finally I asked a friend, please bid on this lot, because I want to examine the quality, the authenticity of this item. But until then, Barnaby ignores me, so. It’s a shame. It has its effect on me, but it’s your privilege to stop the relationship with me–

OS: I won’t stop anything, y’know. As you know, Barnaby is a man of his own thing, y’know? I’ve never stopped anything, myself. So I’ve never prevented you to bid–

WB: How would I buy something and not have the money seized? I’ll give you an example. In 2016 Kelvin was in London, he went in the basement, he was tidying up. He found an Indian note belonging to me that had been in the sale in 2008 and unsold. And Barnaby chucked it into a box and never apparently looked at it again. Kelvin asked him what’s this? And Barnaby thought about it and said, well it was unsold. And apparently in this box there were quite a number of items that had been unsold or some situation about them, that Barnaby simply dropped in a box. Kelvin was astounded. So this one, he wanted to sell it. I said, no, I don’t want to deal with Spink & Son, period. And in the end, we’re still not sure what happened but it went from him into your sale. And whoever’s accounting for it said, this is for Bill Barrett. First I was sent 2400 pounds. The item sold for just under 20,000. 2400 pounds was sent on my direction; I said, send the rest to me. But I was told no, we are seizing the rest of the money. You’re going to get nothing. So there is something where you got money that —

OS: When was that?

WB: 2016. No, in the end, sorry– He found the note 2016, is my recollection, and it was re-sold, it was after Kelvin came to Spink China, and after my relationship started, it may have been late 2018, early 2019. I can send you the papers if you would like.

OS: Yeah, __________ [? unclear].

WB: So then —

OS: Because —

WB: That’s 14,000 pounds that was seized by you.

OS: This is something I am not aware of. We will look in the _____ ____ ___[?] but as far as I know, at this moment, we have never seized anything, any cash. So maybe you can tell me which notes–

WB: I’ll send you paper —

OS: Tell me which notes and so on, and that will be only[?] two out of eighteen[?], y’know, maybe it was to offset another purchase made elsewhere, whatever —

WB: No, no. I was —

OS: — but we have never seized the money. ______ ______ [obscured]

WB: No, I was in– I was told that, despite what was sent, 2400 to I think DNW to settle a local account, the rest you are not going to get paid. That was what I was told. And we searched the record, and so far, I don’t find the document we’re being told, that’s it, you’re not seeing the rest, we are keeping it. So presumably, either someone discussed it with Miss Poku —

OS: No.

WB: — or they discussed it with you, or both. But that money disappeared. So, that was a lesson to me. But Barnaby [sic; WB intended ‘Kelvin’] said no, absolutely anything we do at Spink China– that was Spink and Son. Anything we do at Spink China, you will never interfere. And until he left, you didn’t. And until he left, you didn’t, as far as I know. He told me you wanted to give me a worse rate, which sounds more profitable, but if I walk because I don’t like the rate you’re now offering, then you get zero. So–

OS: Yeah.

WB: So to me, it was a real good rate. Now I deal with Stack’s Bowers. I told them I got six rebate from Spink & Son– sorry, Spink China, and from you I’ll expect the same. They said, fine. On the spot. Y’know, I give them fantastic material. But Kelvin said you had agreed you would never interfere, and the only thing I ever heard from Kelvin about you was that you wanted him to renegotiate at zero, and I don’t know if he–

OS: Anyway, this– all these _________ [?] [obscured]

WB: It was clear to him that I wasn’t going to pay zero, so maybe he never proposed it.

OS: Yeah, yeah. But, y’know, all these ________ [banknotes?] they are all totally wrong[?] from A to Z, from being dependants[?] of Spink China, he running the Spink China business. He may know a lot _______ [?], all is totally nonsensical, so– Every comment made by Barnaby or Kelvin about paying–

WB: Barnaby I had no contact with. The last communication I had with him was in 2011. And I’ve only seen him once or twice since. With Sue, she had a title which — I don’t know what your titles mean — but in terms of knowing how to run a business, no, she has no knowledge, no experience. It was all Kelvin. So, de facto, Kelvin ran the business, made the decisions, whatever he agreed with Sue, or Sue and you, or Sue and Miss Poku —

OS: What I tell[?] you is Kelvin Cheung never run the Spink China business. Y’know. He was one of the Heads. We have a Head of Whiskey, a Head of Stamps, he was Head of Banknotes. That’s it. Like any of the Heads.

WB: Yeah, but he made — relating to me, he made all the decisions.

OS: Yeah, that’s ______ [obscured]

WB: So, hands-on, he made the decisions. Legally, I think his title was Head of World Banknotes, whatever that meant. When I told him that, he took out his card and looked at it to see what title he had. But what does it mean? I don’t know.

OS: Okay, anyway. So, I understand [what your position would be] [?], y’know. You, I hope you also understand my position. The only question is __________ [obscured], are we both willing to make a sacrifice to meet somewhere, where we say, y’know, we agree an amount, but to compensate for the insurance, for many years of insurance, for the cancellation, are we ready —

WB: Barnaby promised to return the Ceylon material to me. So the idea that I want to pay storage and insurance for something he was supposed to return, but you blocked him, is beyond reality. So, I–

OS: Yeah. OK. _______________ [obscured]

WB: Legally at the time I owed nothing. And legally at the time you had no right to seize my property, and that hasn’t changed. How much the value of the banknotes, or me having damage by you seizing them, that’s another question. I haven’t got into that. So. But you seized– And the figure you gave was from a receipt, which I don’t have, I didn’t find yet, my original of that receipt — was 500,000. But there’s at least another 200,000 that I’ve identified that you seized with it. So that’s 700,000 pounds. And you claimed from me 25,000 pounds or 48,000 pounds, but without reference to the contract, and–

OS: I think —

WB: I think that this is a terrible decision on your part. And Spink, it has no assets that I’m aware of. You only have a reputation and a rented facility, and a name. And the name, since all of your top people have gone, the name means less and less every day. Fewer and fewer people built their collection from Spink, because they’ve been sold through you or sold through others, so it’s a declining asset. So, to hold this, to seize whatever 125,000 pounds, is astounding. So to me, the only position is, immediately release that, I’ll send instructions, you’ll send it out on Monday, and all the material you’ve seized, if you want to keep it, you keep it, and you deal with the future. But had you, at that time, whenever you spoke with Barnaby and told him you’re not going to release any of my property, when you did that if you had called me and said, will you agree to compensate us in some way–

OS: We had exchanges, we had email exchanges, y’know. And you will see that in discovery.

WB: No, the banknotes were seized first, and then you told me you want this. When you do that, then we’re in a very different position. But had you said, Bill, I’ve re-read the contract, it’s very weak, it doesn’t refer to anything about expenses and so on, it just says, if you’re late then we have the right to sell, and I paid, and then I can take my property back.

OS: You paid late —

WB: I paid late, no question.

OS: ____________ [obscured], so–

WB: But you undertook a catalogue, that was your decision. But there is nothing in the contract–

OS: __________ follow[?] the contract _______ [?]

WB: No, there’s nothing in that contract — which I presume you wrote, or you oversee — and you’re a merchant banker. You have more experience with contracts than anybody on the planet. And I’ve read it over and over, and I think, it’s such a deficient document. It doesn’t– If you look at your terms of sale, it’s, I don’t know, six pages. Christie’s terms of sale are 14 or 15. Terms with clients. And this document, it seemed to have been done in a hurry. It didn’t address may things. If it addressed, after the date we have the right to sell and charge you all the expenses, or even if you paid late, well then legally you are in very good shape. But it doesn’t. So I acted exactly according to the contract. If you hadn’t seized my property — and now you’ve seized my money, which in terms of acting in good faith, it’s very difficult to argue that. You have no claim on that money.

OS: We didn’t see seize your property. Y’know.

WB: Yeah.

OS: Y’know you’ve never asked once.

WB: The lawyers say we’re keeping your property until you pay what we demand. Read the lawyer letters.

OS: Yeah, __________ [obscured]

WB: I presume you authorized the lawyer letters.

OS: Yeah, I’m sure _______ _______ ____ [unclear]. ______ ___ ____ your property. Again I’m not ________ _______ the contract. Anyway–

WB: The letters are, they add a little muscle to each one, and they drop the offer to pay 25,000 to settle it all. I’ve no doubt you had expenses. I heard that people came from Ceylon and you reimbursed them. All you have to say is, Bill, we had expenses, this is all unfortunate, but you paid in full, we’re giving you your stuff, come back to London, we’ll give you your stuff right away, we’ll sit down and itinerize it, and, and–

OS: _______ but we have right to offset. The thing, y’know, the thing is, we don’t need to ___________, we can keep — if you have, y’know, stuff oc–

WB: The law–

OS: We can ______ and then have a discussion. And that’s exactly what–

WB: The law– The law–

OS: _______ _______ _______[ ?]

WB: Once I paid your loan in full, your staff, your senior staff said you’ve paid in full, every penny–

OS: When you do an auction, you are bound by the terms and conditions of the auction. And if you look —

WB: I didn’t– I didn’t–

OS: If you look in our catalogues, if you cancel an auction —

WB: I didn’t have an auction. And I told Barnaby, in writing, you can proceed with the sale if you want, but I owe you nothing. And why would you proceed with an auction when you are owed nothing? And he emailed back and said, your material is yours, but don’t make me give it to you today, I’m leaving later today because I worked really hard and I have a vacation planned, and you’ll get it later. Fine. I don’t need to have it at that moment. But, when he comes back, already there’s a demand from you, and then to the lawyers. So we lost that opportunity.

OS: ____ the lawyers ______ [?]

WB: No, they’re very clear, they say–

OS: But the lawyers were much, much later in time. Because–

WB: A little bit. But one of the lawyer’s letters says, we are holding your property for you until you pay. So they are saying my property, it’s not something that legally–

OS: Y’know, we have never seized, we’ve never considered this property as a Spink property. Y’know?

WB: Yeah, but you’ve deprived me of it, and if you read in law, conversion, criminal law and civil law, conversion means you’ve deprived me of the use of it, of the access to it.

OS: But you’ve never asked for it, in twelve years.

WB: Yeah. I asked Barnaby. And then the —

OS: ___________[obscured]

WB: The lawyers say, you won’t get this back. Once you’ve paid everything you demand, you can get your material back. It’s very clear in the lawyer letter. So after that, what’s the point of asking? But when I sold the– apparently sold through Kelvin — the Indian note at 20,000 pounds, thereabouts, I was told in effect, we made a mistake paying you a little bit of it. But the rest you’re not going to get.

OS: This I reject because it is highly, y’know, I have never heard about it, so–

WB: I have every document that I created since 1966.

OS: If you give me the sale and the lot number, we will retrieve all of the _______ [?]

WB: Yeah. I can have all of that to you on Monday, when I am back.

OS: So, basically, y’know–

WB: Basically I require the immediate release of my funds. These funds are in trust. They’re not your funds, they’re not–

OS: ______________ ____ [obscured]

WB: — they’re not to be mixed with your general funds. And they’re mine.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: And to hold them, to me is absolutely a terrible judgment.

OS: Yeah, I know.

WB: So they have to be —

OS: Except[?] that we have this right, when you owe us money, we have this right to offset.

WB: But I owe no money. And I accept that I owe you no money by virtue of your contract, which I fulfilled. And the lawyer’s wording is such that they are trying to wiggle a bit, to try to demand something when they know they have no right to it. So that’s where we are. I’ll send you all the file on the India note, and you can ask Kelvin more. But when I spoke to Kelvin about it, he remembered some and didn’t remember others, and then he’s now left all his Spink records in London, or here I guess.

OS: Of course, any production will have all the production[?] of _______ [?]

WB: He took no records with him. I had to send him my sale results from the three coin sales, so he would know what he took on my behalf from Spink, turned over to Stack’s Bowers, he didn’t have the records. So I sent him my records for that. Which is correct on his part. He wants to be very, very careful to fulfill the word of his contract obligations with you. But I have all of mine and I have no restriction on them. So, for the India note, you’ll get those Monday, late Monday.

OS: ____________________ [obscured]

WB: Yeah. But that’s money. After commission it’s about 14 or 15,000 pounds, I think. And I was just told, no, you’re not getting the rest of the money.

OS: In addition[?] it is possible that, y’know, it has been taken and deleted from your account. And I am not aware of it, and I was ______ [looking for it?]

WB: Well, I’m going to ask — When you see that it was sold, I will ask you to send me, was there an account set up for me. You will remember, I asked you for my entire account since 2010. And you sent it, but there is no mention of that item in the account. But then whether the account was selective for–

OS: Was it sold __________ or was it ____ — I don’t know what’s the, what’s the ________[?]

WB: But if the money was seized, or placed into my account, it doesn’t show in the account that you sent. So where did that money go? And 2400 was sent I think to DNW or to St. James’s — I don’t remember which — and then I was told, you’re not getting any more, we’re keeping it. But Kelvin was handling it all. He couldn’t even remember giving it for auction. So exactly how it got into your auction, I don’t know, and he doesn’t. But there are more records that, if I have to, I’ll search. But for sure I never go the money, and for sure it doesn’t show on my account. So, the whole thing is greatly unfortunate. You’ve lost maybe millions, your clients have lost– Y’know, twelve years, how much did I spend, how much– I drive up prices when I’m there. Most of the stuff I don’t want, I don’t bid on it. The ones I bid, everybody else knows they’re not going to do well. So. And as I said, 1990, which is before all of this began, for one archive sale from Christies in New York I spent 1,565,000 US. And I just bought them because–

OS: Yeah, _________ [?]

WB: — because I liked them, and I’m a collector. So.

OS: Basically, if I summarize your position, y’know, there is no point in discussing if we can come to, y’know, amicable agreement —

WB: No.

OS: — you stick to your position, 100 percent. And OK.

WB: So you have, and I’m recording you for the record. I’ve now identified 700,000 pounds worth of material, 200,000 pounds–

OS: As far as we know it is, for insurance it is 470 [thousand] for the collection.

WB: But there are many– For example, with the money that I borrowed from Spink & Son I paid my Hong Kong account, which was about 60,000 pounds, and the notes came to London. But I didn’t get them, they were seized. So that’s another 60,000 pounds worth of material kept by you. Then I realized–

OS: When was that purchase?

WB: I think October of 2010, just around the time when I borrowed the money from Spink & Son.

OS: ______[?] we don’t have that.

WB: Kelvin saw it. He told me, when he was cleaning up the boxes of banknotes, that went on a London visit, he found that note. It’s a Hong Kong Bank 5 tael from Hankow maybe, excessively rare. I paid 40,000 pounds about for it, converted from– in your Spink China sale. And they were sent to London, and they were in the box. And there is a lot of other material in a box that supposedly contains 1500 of my Irish notes, and gradually I have come to realize, oh — I never saw that again, I never saw that again. It went to Barnaby on a certain date, I never saw it again. It never went in an auction. And then I came to realize that the box with my Irish, which was at the British Museum, delivered to you, that other things that were — Barnaby is casual — that other things that were on hand, he put it in the box. And then maybe the box was considered to be only the Irish. But with it was other material which piled up, including that’s where Kelvin found the Spink China lot, the two or three lots that I bought. But it was all seized. And the lawyer’s say, we’re keeping your material until you pay up. And they don’t say it’s your material, and it is my material, and there is no right of seizure. So. They also say there is a lien on your property. And there is no lien. So for a lawyer that’s a terrible statement to make. A lien is a legal document, filed with the system, and they didn’t do it. But they said we have it. I’ve checked. So, you still have the same counsel?

OS: Yes.

WB: Cripps? So, that’s going to be an issue for them to deal with, because they made a false statement to me, and the court doesn’t deal harshly with lawyers who make false statements. But they’re going to hear about that one. So. And I would ask you to confirm that there never was a lien, because if there is, then I don’t know where it is, and I want to know that you have this legal–

OS: I don’t know if the[?] lien created by contractual — y’know, I’m not a lawyer, but–

WB: It has to be registered.

OS: Yeah.

WB: It’s a property. So. So that’s yes, where we are. So I’m asking you today, to make on Monday remittance of the mon–

OS: We won’t. Because, y’know, I want to find, y’know, I would like to try to find an intelligent settlement for the insurance cost we’ve incurred for the cancellation of the auction.

WB: No.

OS: If we can find something that make sense to everybody, I am very happy to look at how we can do it, how we can be flexible, and quite generous to solve the matter. But if you tell me, I am not going to move, y’know, I think I’ve got — I’ve done nothing wrong, I’m 100% for sure I’ve done nothing wrong, you are 100% the bad guys — that’s will not fly with me.

WB: Well, for the record that’s my definition. That you have no claim on anything you hold of mine. And you’ll deal with it in the future.

OS: The thing is, y’know–

WB: Claim in England and claim in Hong Kong is legal basis, according to the law, according to contracts. I followed your contract, I signed it with Barnaby, I suggested a couple of changes, which he incorporated, because I thought it was too vague and it should be more specific. He put them in. So I have the contract with his notations on it. Which I agreed to. And then I signed it, and it’s a legally binding contract, and it’s, it lacks many —

OS: Which, which, y’know, when you deal with us, and you sell at auction, you sell at auction. When you sell at auction, you abide by the terms and conditions of the auction. And that’s when the cancellation comes in.

WB: No.

OS: The loan contract is not the issue here. The loan contract is if we’re[?] paid late, ______[automatically?] triggered the auction, where the terms and conditions of the auction apply, and the cancellation by you or by us ________[?] twenty percent–

WB: The contract simply says that you have a right to a ten percent commission if you sell material, so I get ninety percent of the price you sold it for. After that, there is nothing. And I agreed to that. But you– I told Barnaby on the day of the proposed sale, if you sell it, go ahead, but there will be repercussions. You can expect repercussions.

OS: No, no. You said, y’know–

WB: Yeah. Being–

OS: — that’s clear. You said, cancel the auction or I will sue you.

WB: No. I said, if you want to proceed that’s your decision.

OS: ______[?]

WB: No, but if I want to get an injunction about it, I can. That’s a different situation.

OS: No no, but y’know, the _______[?], and when you say I ________[started/stopped it?], I know, I’ve _________[stopped?] the thing and so on, you, for sure, said that, y’know, if it goes with the auction, you’re suing. OK? So, you said, when you say, Olivier you were the first one, and then I was Mr. Nice Guy, and you seized my property and then I became, y’know–

WB: Yeah.

OS: in_________[?]. The first one who, y’know, _______[?] the war hatchet — y’know, you, when you say, y’know, if you proceed with the sale, I’m going to sue you. So–

WB: The law is clear. The moment I paid every penny claimed by Spink & Son, which included—

OS: But no, because there was the _______[?] —

WB: Olivier, the amount–

OS: _______[? obscured]

WB: –the amount included sixteen thousand pounds that she could not identify. And I could not identify. But I told her, include it in the outstanding balance, and we will figure out later what it was. So I paid sixteen thousand pounds that she couldn’t even identify. But I paid it all. So then I paid exactly what I said was owing, and it was. And at that moment my collateral in law is no longer collateral, and I have the right to take it back. And then I would — and Barnaby agreed. And then it was seized. And the lawyers confirm it. So that’s where we’re at. So to me you have no legal ground for any step you’ve taken. And to hold my Ceylon when I asked for it back, said–

OS: _______ _______ [?] the Ceylon, you never asked for it back.

WB: Yeah. It was all, everything on hand with Barnaby was to come back.

OS: You never asked for it–

WB: But I’m much tighter on details of this than you are. So you can speak to Barnaby for whatever he can remember, you have all your records, I don’t know how–

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: But I have all the records, and everything I say is based on written records, and I know that on those I’m right. But for you it’s possession is nine-tenths of the law, and I have to obey you because you seized them, and you’ll block me forever if you can–

OS: No–

WB: — if I don’t pay.

OS: That’s why, I’ve been asking you since June, to say look, this has been going on for long now–

WB: Yeah.

OS: — let’s speak. And you don’t engage, y’know.

WB: Yeah.

OS: And, and–

WB: But when the law agrees with me on all of this, then there’ll be huge damages from you.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: So, that’s where we are. But as I say, everything is written, there is almost nothing that’s he-said-she-said. It’s either you or Barnaby or Mira Poku, or the other lady, who I was working with for two days. And I paid everything that was demanded of me. And at that moment, give everything back. And if you had, we wouldn’t be here. Or we would be celebrating another successful sale.

OS: Yeah, yeah. It’s a, it’s a sad story. But —

WB: So we’re stuck.

OS: I’m sad[?] we cannot come to–

WB: No.

OS: — something. And uh–

WB: The only thing you have is possession. And in law, that’s not a very good defence.

OS: We have a different opinion. But uh–

WB: But you seized a 125,000 pounds, claiming insurance and storage–

OS: _________[?]. It’s the right[?] of, of every consignment we make. Check out terms and conditions–

WB: No.

OS: — in any catalogue. Y’know. It’s the right to offset.

WB: You have no claim– but no, that clause that you quoted to me, and I asked, please send me the entire document but you didn’t. Kelvin, I sent it to Kelvin, he said he’d never heard of it, never seen it, never seen it applied–

OS: _____ ___________[?]. If you look at any catalogue, you received the clause, you know? I look at this catalogue here, y’know, it’s going to be here.

WB: Yeah.

OS: That’s a Chinese sale.

WB: And you realize all of this will come out, and probably soon. So you will–

OS: ________[?] it’s in every catalogue.

WB: You will explain to anyone who is interested, and to a lot of potential consignors, what’s going on, and you can deny it, but it will all be based on fact.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: And that’s why I say, Spink has — it’s not as if you have fifty tons of gold in your basement– you have no assets that I am aware of except the name, and the brains of the staff. But the staff are all new. And people won’t consign to them because they haven’t developed a relationship. There are many, many stories of late payments to vendors, so many people are unhappy, and they’re talking. So all of this for a company with no, no– you don’t have a property empire. You just have the name. So for you, if I were you I would send the money immediately. If you want to send back all the property or I’ll collect it, that’s up to you. And then go from there. But as long as you hold it, you have no legal right to hold it. So. And I spent thirty-three weeks in New York working on– I would fly down Monday morning, work with my lawyers for five days, Friday night fly back, Saturday do my homework for that week, Sunday prepare for the next week. Thirty-three weeks. But I do it. And I’ll do it again. But in the end, there won’t be a Spink. And it’s not malicious, it’s simply you have no right. And the driver at Spink is you, the ultimate decision maker is you. So at Spink China, Kelvin–

OS: You can threaten me as much as you want–

WB: No, it’s not a threat, it’s just–

OS: ______[you say?] I have no company, my company is _______[?] and dying, and you’re going to bankrupt me.

WB: No–

OS: You can threaten me all that you want–

WB: –the truth is not a threat.

OS: –but for me I– y’know, OK, the truth is not a threat, OK. But nevertheless, I see what you have just said is obviously a threat–

WB: No.

OS: But it doesn’t matter. Y’know, it doesn’t threaten me, or whatever. Obviously we are also looking at, y’know, the legal position. Y’know. It’s a waste of time for everybody, and money, because the only guys who make money are the lawyers–

WB: I don’t– I’ve had so many people in my life decide they had the right to do whatever they want to me. And I don’t accept that.

OS: I know, I know. You’ve _____ ____[?]. And–

WB: You bought the firm from Christies?

OS: Yeah.

WB: You know them well? So–

OS: Yeah yeah.

WB: You can ask them about the– I can’t reveal the terms of settlement.

OS: No, no, But it’s, it’s —

WB: So we’re stuck. But to say, y’know–

OS: Because, one thing I am telling you, I’ve got no interest in your banknotes, nor your cash or whatever. I just want to be paid for the little thing I’m owed. That’s it.

WB: Yeah. But none of this is valid–

OS: Yeah yeah–

WB: Not invalid in law, and you’re position is, I hold it and I’ll try to make sure you never get it. That’s your position.

OS: No, y’know it’s– What are we doing here? I’m super busy. I’m seeing you because —

WB: You’re telling me–

OS: — I want find something to, really to return to you your banknotes, and, and you will think that you’re totally–

WB: No.

OS: –y’know, you say I owe you zero, I’ve cancelled the auction, you’ve stored and paid insurance for twenty years or so, I owe you zero, which is unreasonable. It’s unreasonable.

WB: If — I owe you zero. And if you built something based on I owe you zero, that’s in your mind. And–

OS: Yeah yeah, of course. And we each have different representations of the thing. Y’know we could agree to disagree, y’know. It’s nothing personal, or somebody got on my case. I know you want to bankrupt me and–

WB: No, I don’t know your–

OS: Yeah, can I show you, I’ve got nothing personal, I’ve got no interest in your money nor your banknotes. So–

WB: I don’t know your wealth. I don’t know Spink’s financial position. You don’t issue reports as far as I know, and I certainly haven’t seen one, or been made aware of one. But I owed you nothing when you made each seizure, and I still owe you nothing. And then the question is, if I owed you nothing, why did you take these steps. And that’s where we are.

OS: Yeah.

WB: So. But to say that you’re seizing 125,000 pounds from a Hong Kong legal person because of some claim from London–

OS: No, but to be correct, the money is not– at this moment the money is not seized. It has not moved to an account. Just, we are not making the payment, it is still on your account, it has not been moved to Spink & Sons or whatever. Until other action. So the money is still in your account, but basically we are now thinking of exercising our right of offset, as per our terms and condition. You can open any catalogue, you will see them. And that’s it. But we have not done anything at this point, because as I have said, that as of now, I want to find a solution.

WB: Then there’ll be more, and it won’t make you look good. It won’t make me look bad, that’s for sure.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

WB: You seized 700,000 pounds worth of my property, at your values, at least, and 124,000 pounds cash here, another 14 or 15,000 pounds–

OS: And also, y’know, as far as I know it is 470, the number.

WB: Sorry?

OS: That you–

WB: No, I’ve just told you. My Hong purchases were seized by you, and Kelvin saw them in a box with my other property. So they’re there. But I will, I will itemize what I have identified. The only thing is, since I never received an inventory, which you’re under law, obliged to–

OS: Yeah yeah.

WB: — produce when you seized it. But there is no record of what you seized, except for five items that total, you say, 470, to your value. But no details. I asked Barnaby, when you give it back to me, the Irish, we will need to make record of every note you’re giving back. He said, I’m not going to make a thousand photocopies. Fine. But I am in the right. And your position is, I control you, because I have your property and I have your mon–

OS: ___________[?]

WB: No.

OS: You make this on a personal level, it seems to me —

WB: No. You, you and Spink–

OS: _______ ________[?], I’m running a business, which is not as bad as you think, by the way–

WB: No, not at the–

OS: I’m doing my best, y’know, running a business, trying to give a decent service to customer. Once in a while, it goes very wrong, y’know. I think, y’know, you put all the blame on me for going legal and so on, but the first legal threats came from your side. This, y’know, _______ look at it.

WB: What legal threat?

OS: From the cancellation of the auction. But anyway, I think, let’s–

WB: I will mention one other thing. When I sold some of my Irish with Barnaby in 2007, the sale was really disappointing, and he couldn’t understand why, and I don’t know who the buyers are for Irish. So then you told him, seize 7000 pounds as extra charges. But there is nothing–

OS: What?

WB: Yeah.

OS: On what basis?

WB: On no basis. You’ll see it. It’s in a– But I don’t agree to pay 7000 pounds because you had a bad sale–

OS: But this is not in the–

WB: It’s there. So this is 2007. Ask Barnaby.

OS: Yeah yeah.

WB: You have access to him, and he’s going to be appearing in this.

OS: Yeah, yeah.

[Sound of door opening.]

WB: So for your business, for the record, I wish you well.

OS: Yeah, thank you.

WB: If you have strong Spink, with strong results–

OS: Yeah. We try our best, and again–

WB: –that’s good for everyone and good for me.

OS: Please be aware, it’s absolutely not personal. Y’know. And–

WB: But all of this is in your power to, to rectify.

OS: Yeah, but– y’know. I am like you, I have a view of a right and wrong. I think it is impossible for you to say, I owe you zero.

WB: I owe you zero.

OS: Yeah, I know–

WB: Because I followed the law and I followed the contract–

OS: Yeah, but for me, it is impossible to accept[?]. So that’s why–

WB: Speak to your lawyer and make sure they know all the facts.

OS: Yeah yeah yeah.

WB: Because your memory will not be as sharp as mine.

OS: Of course. I will, of course. I will, y’know, the next–

WB: If you require other documents from me, every record, I have them as computer files. I have them as hard copies.

OS: Yeah.

WB: And those three letters are very specific. And they say, we have the right to–

OS: Yeah, I will look at[?] them. Basically I am travelling next week.

WB: Yeah.

OS: The week after, I will be looking at all these things, y’know. Refreshing my memory. Speaking to the lawyers and so on.

WB: Speak to Barnaby.

OS: Yeah. No I won’t speak to Barnaby, probably, but–

WB: Well–

OS: Then, _______[?] all is record[?]. Everything we turned up[?], all is record[?], so I don’t need to speak to him, I’ve got all his ________[?].

WB: I have no idea how good his records are, or in what shape, so…

OS: OK. ______ [I’ve got to go?]

WB: As I say, I wish– If you get fantastic material, fantastic results, I’m happy. This is my thinking–

OS: And all the best to you. Cheers.

WB: — bye-bye.

[Sound of elevator door.]

WB: So the elevator has just closed. I’m heading out the door.

[END]

—————————–

WB ANNOTATIONS:

**[page 16]: “OS: … the signed letter to consent[?] an agreement…”

WB COMMENT: It is not a “signed letter to consent…” it’s a contract. It is free-standing. It relates to nothing else. It discussing lending me money, the specific terms under which the money is lent, and there is no reference to penalty, expense, or any other addition. Mr. Stocker here is attempting to call it something else and make it part of something larger, but it is not. It stands alone, as it was intended.
And as he said earlier, he believes absolutely in following a contract, and so do I.