Griffing v. Atkins
1 So. 2d 445, 1941 La. App. LEXIS 337 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for sale can be rescinded for fraud when a buyer with expert knowledge takes advantage of an ignorant seller by suppressing the truth about the object's true value. This suppression constitutes fraud, particularly when the seller was induced to consult the buyer or his associates for an expert opinion, creating a quasi-fiduciary relationship.
Facts:
- In 1936 or 1937, Willie Sims found a diamond ring at Louisiana State University's stadium.
- Sims' wife wore the ring, which was later seen by Wilbert Jackson, an employee of Ben Roumain's jewelry store.
- At Jackson's suggestion, Sims brought the ring to Roumain's store in February 1940 to have it 'tested' and appraised.
- At the store, another employee, Collins, informed Sims that the ring was a diamond but had 'bubbles' in it, and owner Ben Roumain discussed its value, mentioning a price of $130.
- Earl Griffing, a fellow employee and jewelry expert present during these conversations, knew the ring was worth substantially more than $130.
- After Roumain did not purchase the ring, Griffing approached Sims and bought the ring for $130, paying $121 upfront.
- The ring was later determined to have a value of approximately $1,250.
- Sims later tendered the $121 back to Griffing in an attempt to rescind the sale, which Griffing refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Earl Griffing filed a possessory action in the trial court against Wilbur B. Atkins, the Chief of Police, to recover the ring.
- Willie Sims intervened in the lawsuit, claiming ownership and seeking to annul the sale to Griffing on the grounds of fraud and error.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Griffing, declaring him to be the legal owner of the ring.
- The intervenor, Willie Sims, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 buyer's failure to disclose the true, high value of an item to an uninformed seller constitute fraud sufficient to rescind the contract, when the buyer has superior knowledge and is an employee at the expert establishment where the seller sought an appraisal?
Opinions:
Majority - Not specified
Yes, the buyer's failure to disclose constitutes fraud sufficient to rescind the contract. By seeking an appraisal at the jewelry store upon an employee's recommendation, Willie Sims entered into a quasi-fiduciary relationship with the store's employees, including Earl Griffing. Griffing, possessing expert knowledge of the ring's true value, had a duty to deal fairly and disclose the truth. His failure to correct the misleading information and his subsequent purchase of the ring at a grossly inadequate price was a suppression of truth that constituted 'artifice' under the Louisiana Civil Code, thereby creating an error of fact and invalidating the contract on the grounds of fraud.
Dissenting - Not specified
No, the buyer's silence does not constitute fraud sufficient to rescind the contract. The relationship between Griffing and Sims was that of a buyer and seller in an arm's-length transaction, not a fiduciary one. Sims did not ask for Griffing's opinion, nor did he rely on him for information. In commercial transactions, a buyer with superior knowledge has no legal duty to disclose that information to the seller. While Griffing may have had a moral or ethical obligation to inform Sims of the ring's value, his failure to do so does not meet the legal standard for fraud, as he made no false assertions.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that, in certain circumstances, a failure to speak or passive concealment can constitute fraud, particularly where there is a vast disparity in knowledge between the parties. It expands the concept of a quasi-fiduciary duty to employees of an expert establishment when a customer seeks advice, placing a higher standard of fair dealing on them than in a typical arm's-length transaction. The ruling challenges the traditional principle of 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware) by suggesting that an expert buyer cannot knowingly take advantage of a demonstrably ignorant seller's trust in their expertise.
