ACA Galleries, Inc. v. Kinney
2013 WL 638835, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23983, 928 F. Supp. 2d 699 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sophisticated party who has the opportunity to investigate a material fact but fails to do so cannot later seek to rescind the contract under the doctrine of mutual mistake or claim reasonable reliance for a fraud claim, as they have assumed the risk of that mistake through their own negligence.
Facts:
- In March 2007, Joseph Kinney contacted ACA Galleries, Inc. ('ACA'), an art gallery, to sell a painting he represented as a work by Milton Avery.
- Kinney shipped the painting to a warehouse in New York to allow prospective buyers, including ACA, to inspect it.
- Jeffrey Bergen, the president of ACA, personally inspected the painting and, based on his own judgment, determined it was a genuine Milton Avery.
- ACA agreed to purchase the painting from Kinney for $200,000, and the bill of sale described it as a 'Milton Avery Oil on Canvas.'
- After the transaction was complete, ACA had the painting examined by the Milton and Sally Avery Arts Foundation.
- The Avery Foundation determined that the painting was a forgery.
- ACA demanded a refund from Kinney, who initially agreed but never returned the money.
Procedural Posture:
- ACA Galleries, Inc. sued Joseph Kinney in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged breach of contract (treated by the court as a claim for rescission based on mutual mistake) and two counts of fraud.
- ACA filed a motion for summary judgment on its contract/mutual mistake claim.
- Kinney filed a cross-motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of ACA's claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sophisticated buyer's failure to conduct a proper investigation into a painting's authenticity, when the means of verification are available, preclude that buyer from later rescinding the contract based on mutual mistake or from establishing reasonable reliance for a fraud claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Cedarbaum, District Judge.
Yes. A sophisticated buyer's failure to conduct a proper investigation, when the means of verification are available, precludes claims of mutual mistake and fraud. The doctrine of mutual mistake may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence. Here, ACA, a sophisticated art gallery, had the opportunity to have the painting authenticated by the Avery Foundation before the purchase but failed to do so. By relying on its own limited inspection, ACA bore the risk of the mistake through 'conscious ignorance' and cannot now claim mutual mistake. Similarly, ACA's fraud claim fails because it cannot establish the essential element of reasonable reliance. As a sophisticated plaintiff, ACA cannot claim it justifiably relied on Kinney's representations when it failed to make use of the means of verification that were readily available to it. The ability to consult an expert was not a matter peculiarly within Kinney's knowledge, and ACA's failure to do so was unreasonable as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware), especially for sophisticated parties in commercial transactions. It clarifies that legal remedies like rescission for mutual mistake and claims of fraud are not available to protect experts who fail to perform adequate due diligence. The ruling establishes that when a party is aware of its 'limited knowledge' but proceeds anyway, it assumes the risk of being wrong. This holding makes it significantly more difficult for expert buyers in specialized fields, such as art, to unwind deals that turn out badly if they neglected an opportunity to verify critical facts pre-purchase.
