Julian Benfield is the owner of Julian’s Books, a rare and used book dealer in New York since 1997. Prior to that he worked for Xerox in engineering and marketing management, and as a computer consultant. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from The Cooper Union, and MBA from Rochester Institute of Technology. His coolest offering is currently a signed copy of Mason & Dixon.
Charity Auction booklet, 1999
Fast track to a few years ago, when I was negotiating with a potential buyer for Crying Of Lot 49, and mentioned that I never took Pynchon up on his offer to personalize the book. My customer, who subsequently paid $23,500 for the signed Lot 49, immediately asked if Pynchon would inscribe it to him. That’s where my saga started.
Sure enough, I contacted Pynchon’s wife and agent Melanie, and told her I wanted to take Thomas Pynchon up on his offer. No good. After much back and forth, I was told that he would not do it, and I should stop bothering them. She said the offer was only good at the time of the purchase. But I argued that was not specified — there was no time limit given — and wouldn’t it be a nice thing for him to do, given I had opened my wallet wide to support the school’s charity auction, etc. They wouldn’t budge — so next I talked to his publicist at Penguin. Again, more back and forth, until she finally told me that Thomas Pynchon had declared he will never sign a book again, let alone inscribe the signed copies I had.
I hate to think of this in any legal sense, but it is inevitable that some will do so, I suppose. The auction catalog for Lot 49 just stated “and personalized by request”. Traditionally, if something is ambiguous, the interpretation favors the buyer — and emphatically so if there is no resulting cost or burden to the seller. Even more so with a luxury item. In addition, the mere passage of time does not cause one to lose a purchased benefit, unless it is somehow not feasible for the seller to make good on the benefit (like a company going bankrupt, etc.). An inscription takes a few seconds. On his side of the argument, one can say that we all know he is loathe to sign anything, so therefore I am being unreasonable.
What do you think?
Leave him alone, I say. He’s probably annoyed that the book was bought for resale and wants to be left alone. The legalities are secondary. Sometimes you let them slide.
I have let it slide so far. But one unintended benefit of a suit might be that you get to see him, as he may have to make an appearance or be held in contempt of court.
That would be unfortunate. Do we need to see him.
Don’t count on him showing up in court. He wouldn’t have to. If it ever gets to court. Seriously, you want to go toe-to-toe with guy who had Ted Turner pull footage of him from CNN report back in the 1990s? Good luck.
I think you are a very silly man. In the first place, the question whether you can sue is ludicrous. Anybody with a Big Chief pad and a Dixon Ticonderoga Number 2 pencil, plus a filing fee, can sue anybody else for anything. What you mean is, if you sue, can you win? Of course not. No reasonable person could assume that the promise to personalize the book lasted for seventeen years. The equity doctrine involved here is called laches. In the ancient legal phrase, you sat on your rights until they had long expired. All you have done is assure that nobody else will ever get a book autographed by Pynchon. I doubt seriously that that particular fact is going to redound to your credit in the book collecting community. All you really are, by your account, is a jerk who can’t take No for an answer.
“The equity doctrine involved here is called laches”. That’s completely wrong. Laches applies to if you are wronged and take forever to seek redress. For example if I wait 17 years to sue over his refusing to inscribe as promised, counting from the time he made the refusal. At the time of purchase, nothing wrong was done, so it does not apply. A benefit that is purchased has no time limit to collect on it, unless specified. It is yours, as you paid for it. Statute of limitations (6 years) is applicable here. But again, from the time of the refusal, so with years to go.
I’m sorry to see folks calling you names. I do understand your position, Julian. However, I think what really undercuts your rationale for a possible cause of action is the fact that, at the time of sale, you turned down the offer to have the book inscribed. So to come back 10+ years later and say you’ve changed your mind isn’t a compelling argument. In the context of the auction terms, you took Option A — to not have it inscribed. But I doubt you have any intention to sue, and it’s an interesting tale.
There was no indication that taking A precluded exercising B. Option B to have it inscribed was interpreted by me as open-ended in time. The catalog said (personalized by request). The only thing that should cause me to lose Option B is if he is incapable of doing it – which I don’t think is the case. When terms of an agreement are ambiguous, interpretation generally favors the buyer, especially if there is no consequence to the other party.
Maybe no explicit indication, but I’m pretty sure a judge would have little sympathy for your argument. I think it’s pretty obvious that an inscription option at the time of sale is what was implied, even if not so stated. And you said, No thank you.
Perhaps. But sellers are required to make terms absolutely clear – not imply, and I did not have that impression you’re putting forth. Again, if there is any ambiguity at all, the buyer is usually favored – especially if it is of no burden to the seller. So I would have chances given that’s the well established precedent. If as in this case, there is no burden, a ruling in favor of the buyer might be probable, as the offer was made without great clarity.
Proceed at your own risk, if you want, but I do think your “case” is weak, due to the time elapsed and your opting not to have the book inscribed when your won it at auction.
Pynchon wasn’t the seller, so unless you want to sue the school your children attended, move on, dude. We’ll all pretend you did so gracefully.
He agreed to have them speak for him. They can also sue him.
Your potential buyer had every right to ask if it could be inscribed but hey, the dude said no, so that should be that, really. All of the persistent ‘back and forth’ validates for me his reasons for staying out of the public eye. The legal talk is a bit distasteful to my British tastes – you Americans and your lawyers, suing at the drop of a hat (but, your honour, it dropped on my foot and damaged my valuable sneakers…!)
Your buyer would have a signed copy of (imho) Pynchon’s finest book, is that not enough? If I had the cash I’d buy it off you and leave the man alone to enjoy his life and, hopefully, to keep writing.
Does Pynchon’s position on this tell you anything about American character?
No, but your reply does!
Shouldn’t one who writes books support those who sell them?
Of course, but you’re in the secondary market, he won’t see a penny of the money this inscribed book would sell for. You aren’t supporting him by selling the book, are you?
Without the secondary book market, books would probably be unaffordable to most, as the corporate publishers would go beserk price-wise.
That isn’t the issue here.
Pynchon is under no obligation to provide a personalized inscription to a third party (your customer). That was not the agreement when you won the auction. When you declined the initial offer to have Pynchon write a personalized inscription to you, you released him from any further obligation in the matter.
Your admission that the result of a potential lawsuit would be to force Pynchon to appear in court strikes me as a thinly-disguised case of harassment / stalking. Any decent attorney would have a field day with your post / comments.
What do I think?
I think you sound like a greedy, shameless and obnoxious man. You’re all the more odious for your plan to flush him out into the public eye, knowing as you do how he values his privacy.
By your own admission you bought the copy as an investment. Yet you represent yourself as having opened your wallet wide to support a charity. You made a decision not to have the book inscribed as you thought it would damage the resale value. Live with your decision and stop badgering the man and those representing him.
Why not read some of his work. You might benefit from it.
There is no good reason for him to not inscribe it. What would that be?
The fact that it was bought for resale is not inconsistent with wanting to support a charity. My impression was that it would be inscribed whenever I requested it (“on request”). If terms are ambiguous, interpretation resides with the buyer, particularly where there’s no consequence to the other party.
I think this is what we call a troll
Paid by Russia?
Keep bothering him and I’ll stalk you.
The readership is holding back the writer.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything they see as having damaged them. Pynchon’s commitment was apparently to personally inscribe it for the buyer (you). You never asked him to do so while owning the book. Now, you want him to inscribe it for a new owner. I don’t believe a judge will hold him accountable for inscribing this book for subsequent owners.
What you have is a cool story to tell your friends and family. And $23,500.
No, he could inscribe it to me, and the new owner would have been happy with that.
Nice job Benfield, after this I’m going to hazard a guess that Pynchon never again donated one of his signed books to the Cathedral School (or anywhere else for that matter). This happened to me one time, when a guy who bought the size M vintage baseball jacket I donated to a school auction tracked me down and demanded I return it for a larger size.
This awful tale reinforces my belief that many of the worst Philistines on the planet are mechanical engineers.
That’s exactly what his publicist at Penguin said – that he has decided he will never sign again. But its important to note that decision must have come way before the conflict with me, as I don’t believe he has signed anything since Mason & Dixon and Crying Of Lot 49 for Cathedral School – and the disagreement with me arose 17 years after that.
This belongs in the AITA thread on Reddit. YTA.
The fact that you drew out so many more or less intelligent comments with this idea is an accomplishment in itself, given how specious your reasoning is from the get-go. You have no way of proving that the Pynchons did not make it clear to the school in 1999 that the offer was only for the immediate aftermath of the sale. Just because it wasn’t made clear to you doesn’t mean it wasn’t made clear to the school.
If terms aren’t clear, interpretation favors the buyer – especially when there’s no cost to the seller.
Wow, so you single-handedly are to blame for the man never signing another book again? This is totally parasitic behavior. He offered to sign the book, you turned it down. That was the end of the transaction. If I buy a toaster that comes in red and blue and they ask “do you want the red or the blue model?” At checkout, I don’t get to come back 20 years later and say “upon further consideration, even though I chose the red, I think I want to take you up on your original offer of the blue one now!”
Also, your rationale that a law suit might force him to appear in court is disgusting. Let the man have his peace and privacy. People like you are the exact reason he chooses to be so private.