Question

6 - The personal representatives of the plaintiff's estate hired an appraiser to appraise personal property in preparation for an estate sale. The appraiser told the representatives that she was no judge of fine art and that they would have to hire an additional appraiser if she found any fine art. She did not report finding any fine art, and relying on her silence, the representatives priced and sold two oil paintings at $60. The defendant came to the estate sale and bought the paintings. Although he had bought and sold some art before, he was not an educated purchaser and had made no more than $55 on any art that he had previously sold; he had bought many paintings that ended up being forgeries. He assumed that the paintings were not originals, given their price and the fact that professionals were managing the sale, but he liked the subject matter of one and the frame of the other. Once home with the paintings, he compared their signatures to those in a book of artists' signatures and thought they looked like those of Martin Johnson Head. As he had done with other art, he sent photos of the paintings to Christie's in New York, which confirmed the signatures and offered to auction the paintings for him. The auction netted the defendant $911,000. After finding out what had happened, the estate sued the defendant buyer, alleging that the contract should have been rescinded on grounds of mutual mistake and unconscionability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. How do you think the appellate court ruled, and why? [Estate of Martha Nelson v. Carl Rice and Anne Rice, 12 P. 3d 238, 2000 LEXIS APP 159 (2000).] 7 - Audrey Vokes was a 51-year-old widow who wanted to become an "accomplished dancer." She was invited to attend a "dance party" at J. P. Davenports' School of Dancing, an Arthur Murray franchise. She subsequently signed up for dance classes, at which she received elaborate praise. Her instructor initially sold her eight half-hour dance lessons for $14.50 each, to be used one each month. Eventually, after being continually told that she had excellent potential and that she was developing into a beautiful dancer—when, in fact, she was not developing her dance ability and had no aptitude for dance—she ended up purchasing a total of 2,302 hours' worth of dance lessons for a total of $31,090.45. When it finally became clear to Vokes that she was not developing her dance skills, in part because she had trouble even hearing the musical beat, she sued Arthur Murray. What would be the basis of her argument? Her case was initially dismissed by the trial court. What do you think the result of her appeal was? [Okes v. Arthur Murray, 212 So. 2d 906 (1968).]

6 - The personal representatives of the plaintiff's estate hired an appraiser to appraise personal property in preparation for an estate sale. The appraiser told the representatives that she was no judge of fine art and that they would have to hire an additional appraiser if she found any fine art. She did not report finding any fine art, and relying on her silence, the representatives priced and sold two oil paintings at $60. The defendant came to the estate sale and bought the paintings. Although he had bought and sold some art before, he was not an educated purchaser and had made no more than $55 on any art that he had previously sold; he had bought many paintings that ended up being forgeries. He assumed that the paintings were not originals, given their price and the fact that professionals were managing the sale, but he liked the subject matter of one and the frame of the other. Once home with the paintings, he compared their signatures to those in a book of artists' signatures and thought they looked like those of Martin Johnson Head. As he had done with other art, he sent photos of the paintings to Christie's in New York, which confirmed the signatures and offered to auction the paintings for him. The auction netted the defendant $911,000. After finding out what had happened, the estate sued the defendant buyer, alleging that the contract should have been rescinded on grounds of mutual mistake and unconscionability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. How do you think the appellate court ruled, and why? [Estate of Martha Nelson v. Carl Rice and Anne Rice, 12 P. 3d 238, 2000 LEXIS APP 159 (2000).]

7 - Audrey Vokes was a 51-year-old widow who wanted to become an "accomplished dancer." She was invited to attend a "dance party" at J. P. Davenports' School of Dancing, an Arthur Murray franchise. She subsequently signed up for dance classes, at which she received elaborate praise. Her instructor initially sold her eight half-hour dance lessons for $14.50 each, to be used one each month. Eventually, after being continually told that she had excellent potential and that she was developing into a beautiful dancer—when, in fact, she was not developing her dance ability and had no aptitude for dance—she ended up purchasing a total of 2,302 hours' worth of dance lessons for a total of $31,090.45. When it finally became clear to Vokes that she was not developing her dance skills, in part because she had trouble even hearing the musical beat, she sued Arthur Murray. What would be the basis of her argument? Her case was initially dismissed by the trial court. What do you think the result of her appeal was? [Okes v. Arthur Murray, 212 So. 2d 906 (1968).]

Added by Jose M.

Question

Please give Ace some feedback