Lexplug logoLexplug

Nelson v. Rice

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B
12 P.3d 238 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A contract for sale may not be rescinded on grounds of mutual mistake if the mistaken party was aware of their limited knowledge regarding the facts of the mistake but treated that limited knowledge as sufficient, thereby assuming the risk of the mistake through 'conscious ignorance'.


Facts:

  • After Martha Nelson died, the representatives of her Estate, Edward Franz and Kenneth Newman, hired Judith McKenzie-Larson to appraise personal property for an estate sale.
  • McKenzie-Larson explicitly informed the representatives that she did not appraise fine art and would notify them if she found any, necessitating a specialist.
  • Relying on McKenzie-Larson's silence and general appraisal, the representatives priced two oil paintings at $60.
  • Carl Rice, who was not an art expert, attended the estate sale and purchased the two paintings for the asking price of $60.
  • After the purchase, Rice investigated the paintings and sent photographs to Christie's auction house in New York.
  • Christie's authenticated the paintings as original works by Martin Johnson Heade and subsequently sold them at auction for $1,072,000.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Estate of Martha Nelson (Plaintiff) sued Carl and Anne Rice (Defendants) in an Arizona trial court, seeking to rescind or reform the contract for the sale of the paintings.
  • The Estate filed a motion for summary judgment.
  • The Rices filed an opposition and a cross-motion for summary judgment.
  • The trial court denied the Estate's motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the Rices, concluding the Estate bore the risk of the mistake.
  • The trial court denied the Estate's subsequent motion for a new trial.
  • The Estate (Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals, with the Rices as Appellees.

Locked

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 contract for the sale of paintings at a fraction of their actual value warrant rescission on grounds of mutual mistake where the seller was aware it had not adequately appraised the paintings for fine art value but proceeded with the sale anyway?


Opinions:

Majority - Espinosa, Chief Judge.

No, the contract does not warrant rescission. A party who is consciously ignorant of a fact cannot later claim mutual mistake to void a contract. The court, applying the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 154(b), determined that the Estate bore the risk of the mistake regarding the paintings' value. The Estate's representatives were aware that their appraiser, McKenzie-Larson, was not qualified to appraise fine art. By proceeding with the sale without hiring a qualified expert, they consciously treated their limited knowledge as sufficient. This action constitutes 'conscious ignorance,' where a party undertakes performance aware of their own limited knowledge, thereby assuming the risk of any mistake. Furthermore, the court found it reasonable under the circumstances to allocate the risk to the Estate, as it had ample opportunity to discover the value of what it was selling and failed to do so. The court also rejected the Estate's unconscionability claim, noting that the Estate dictated the price and terms, and there was no improper bargaining process; the contract was not unconscionable at the time it was made.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the 'conscious ignorance' exception to the doctrine of mutual mistake. It establishes that a party cannot unwind a transaction by claiming mistake if they knew their understanding was incomplete and proceeded anyway. This ruling reinforces the principle of finality in contract law and places a burden on sellers to conduct due diligence, effectively creating a 'seller beware' scenario in certain contexts. Future cases involving mistaken value will likely turn on whether the party seeking rescission was merely mistaken or was aware of their own uncertainty and chose to accept the risk.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Nelson v. Rice (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"