Summary

In addition to the previously-noted facts, here are Inbounds’ basic claims, quoted from the Motion for Summary Judgment:

“The facts of this case are simple and straightforward. Inbounds designed 250 prints of Gary Player. The prints were approved and personally signed by Gary Player, with the intention being that the prints would be sold to raise money for Inbounds’ charity efforts. When Inbounds attempted to sell the prints through ebay.com, Defendant (GPG), which did not even exist at the time the prints were signed, sent a false and malicious e-mail asserting that the prints had been “misappropriated,” and that Inbounds’ actions were “illegal.” As a direct result of Defendants’ tortious conduct, Inbounds is unable to sell the prints and cannot fund its golf programs for disadvantaged youth.

“Summary judgment in Inbounds’ favor is appropriate on both its tortious interference and injurious falsehood claims. The entire defense is based on the disingenuous assertion that Defendant did not know Inbounds was selling the prints. The evidence demonstrates otherwise. Without question, Defendant knew the prints being sold on ebay.com were from Inbounds. Further, Defendant failed to conduct any level of investigation as to the background of Inbounds’ prints before sending out its tortious e-mail. Defendant cannot claim blind ignorance when its own CEO (Marc Player) testified at his deposition that even now, he would act in a similar manner to terminate Inbounds’ sale of the prints.” 

From the deposition of Marc Player: On p.61, Marc Player admits his father's signature was legitimate. (Repeat Link 4A) Commentary by Inbounds: We believe this admitted fact validates our claims of tortious interference and injurious falsehood. 

From the Response Brief in Opposition to Defendant Gary Player Group, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

“Defendant’s motions seeking summary judgment is an illusion of smoke and mirrors. Its entire brief is based on the disingenuous argument that defendant was unaware Inbounds was selling the prints because Inbounds used a consignment company to place the prints on ebay.com. This argument directly conflicts with the evidence in this case.

“Defendant’s “lack of knowledge” argument also conflicts with the testimony given by Marc Player, son of Gary Player and Defendant’s CEO, who even after admitting that Inbounds owns the prints, claims that Inbounds still does not have authority to sell them.”

“Defendant asserts it was unaware of Inbounds’ relationship with ebay.com because of two reasons. Defendant also claims that its knowledge should be rendered “null” because the ebay.com listing did not state that proceeds would go to a charitable organization. (Id.)Both of these arguments fail.

“First, Defendant cannot claim it was unaware that ebay.com was involved. Ms. Brown went onto ebay.com searching for Gary Player autographed memorabilia.

“Second, the evidence bars Defendant’s current argument that it was not aware of Inbounds’ involvement. The listing on ebay.com expressly stated that the Prints “were autographed and given as gifts to Inbounds, Inc. to show his (Gary Player’s) support.”

From Plaintiff Inbounds, Inc.'s COUNTER-STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS, filed 2/7/12:

“Defendant acted with Malice. Defendant conducted zero investigation before sending out the malicious e-mail. (Brown Dep. At 36-46; Player Dep. At 39-41.) At the very least, this is the very recklessness that c onstitutes malice under Goneya, supra.

Defendant's actual malice can be further explained by its conduct following its sending the e-mail. As discussed above, after learning that the Prints belonged to Inbounds, Defendant did not contact ebay.com to correct the false statement. Defendant did not contact IsoldIt to correct its false statement. Defendant did not contact Inbounds to correct the falst statement. Defendant refused time and time again to correct its false statement and to this very day still contends that Inbounds does not have a right to sell the Prints."

(Commentary from Inbounds: Whether or not the GPG acted purposely or inadvertently, their actions constituted obstruction of Inbounds' ability to sell its property. This mirrors baseball's obstruction rule and football's pass interference rule.)