Question: Unsuspecting owner sells work of art for peanuts...
GM
full well that the value is in the thousands, then the person who sold it
finds out the real value, is that a valid transaction or would a court judge
force the buyer to return the work of art?
Brett Weiss
known how much it was *really* worth..." usually won't form the basis of a
successful suit.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
GM wrote in message <6qvftk$ip2$1...@supernews.com>...
Rw13554704
valid. And it seems to me there is no meeting of the minds where someone makes
a sale grossly under the real value of the item. Also grounds of mistake enter
into it. For that kind of money it is best to seek qualified counsel in your
state. Even the attorney charges a fee for the consultation it would be worth
it to know for sure.
GM
it is not really consideration?
Brett Weiss wrote in message <6qvv9m$3k0$1...@winter.news.erols.com>...
Tomh...@worldnet.att.net
"GM" <geo...@fundez.com> wrote:
> If an unsuspecting owner sells a work of art for $10.00 and the buyer knows
> full well that the value is in the thousands, then the person who sold it
> finds out the real value, is that a valid transaction or would a court judge
> force the buyer to return the work of art?
>
>
by the buyer in wrongly inducing the seller to sell, then there is no way that
the courts will interfere and invalidate the transaction. Even if such deceit
is shown (and the burden of proof to so show would be tough), the courts are
very hesitant to interfere in a private contract such as this. Sorry, but the
seller is probably out of luck. They should have gotten a professional,
independent appraisal before agreeing to the sale.
THE ABOVE IS NOT GIVEN AS, NOR IS IT INTENDED THAT IT BE RELIED ON AS,
SPECIFIC LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. IF SUCH ADVICE IS SOUGHT, THEN YOU SHOULD MAKE
AN APPOINTMENT TO SEE AN ATTORNEY OR TAX PROFESIONAL COMPETENT TO ADVISE
CLIENTS IN THIS MATTER. THIS POSTING DOES NOT CREATE ANY ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP!
GOOD LUCK!
T.C. Legg, Attorney
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
RobtCohen
The "Antique Road Show,"
which is a popular PBS show,
continually has stories about
layman buyers buying (undervalued) sleepers at flea markets,
garage sales. et cetera.
The buyer feels justified in his good fortune. The viewer is often envious.
The appraisers are affirmative,
not condemnatory. And they can find
counterfeits. The antique game is no
sure thing. The buyer takes risk.
I would luv to buy a sleeper. And I wouldn't
take it back if it were subsequently
appraised at much higher than for what
it was purchased at.
Nevertheless: If the
"meeting of the minds" rationale
isn't applicable,
what about "good faith?"
Seemingly, the phrase is another ambiguous, amorphous
legalistic concept which is
defined via various precedent-setting, defining cases.
Is it truly "acting in good faith" to
knowingly contract to buy
an item of which the buyer may be
informed but the
seller is ignorant of the item's
true market value? Nah.
Thus, I am raising an ethical and
semantic question
regarding the legalism of "acting in good faith."
I suppose the concept is narrowly
defined in contract case law, but
it doesn't seem to be particularly
relevant to, for instance, the everyday commerce of sifting thru the garage
sales for sleepers.
I suppose the carrying-out of the
contract's terms by both parties "in good faith" is
what the law requires, rather
than an overall morality standard.
A marketplace as such is not
ultimately about morality, and it is very difficult--if not impossible--
for our complex society to legally require an overall
goodness & faithfulness in
transactions, other than required adherence to the narrow legal definition.
One requisite of perfect
capitalism is perfect information.
Perfection is impossible.
The real world is gray. It's
a jungle out here. Its
a morass of contradictions & mixed
moral signals.
Imho:
Our society is ultimately dependent upon ... good faith, while
envying the sleepers at the
"Antique Road Show" is normative
clean fun.
Brett Weiss
gemologist who purchased a valuable gemstone for a few pennies at a yard
sale, the art dealer who got a rare painting for a few dollars, and the
antiquers who get valuable items at estate sales. It happens all the time,
and I've never seen a case ordering the return of such items for lack of
consideration, mutual mistake or otherwise.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
The Small Print: This response is for discussion purposes only. It isn't
meant to be legal advice and you shouldn't treat it as such. If you want
legal advice, speak with a local lawyer familiar with your state's laws who
can review *all* of the facts and the law applicable to your situation.
*****************************************************************
GM wrote in message <6r1g7c$dt2$1...@supernews.com>...
SmarTop
by the seller. The general rule is that a court will not look to the value of
the consideration. An exception however arises where ther is "token"
consideration, on this issue the courts are divided, however this does not
appear to be a case of token consideration.
GM
SmarTop wrote in message
<199808180155...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
SmarTop
example is when someone wishes to disguise a gift transaction as a contract.
For example, "I will sell you my house fora $1." Some jurisdictions consider
this sort of consideration valid...other's don't.