Hoffmann v. Boone
708 F. Supp. 78, 9 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 474, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2530 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, promissory estoppel can overcome the UCC's statute of frauds defense to an oral contract for the sale of goods over $500, but only if the plaintiff demonstrates they suffered an unconscionable injury, which must be a harm substantially greater than the ordinary costs, missed opportunities, and disappointment of a failed transaction.
Facts:
- Paul and Camille Hoffmann, art collectors, had a history of purchasing paintings from Mary Boone's art gallery, having previously bought 16 works based on oral agreements.
- In April 1988, Paul Hoffmann visited Boone's gallery for an exhibition of Brice Marden's work and inquired about a painting titled 'Grey # 1'.
- Hoffmann claims Boone quoted a price of $120,000 and that he placed a 'reserve' on the painting pending his wife's approval.
- On April 15, Hoffmann and his wife met Boone and, according to Hoffmann, told her they wanted the painting, and Boone agreed to sell it to them.
- Boone denies that an agreement was reached, stating she quoted a price of $125,000 and that no specific terms were ever finalized.
- Following the alleged agreement, Boone expressed concern to the Hoffmanns that the painting was too similar to another Marden they owned and suggested they consider a different work, 'Blue'.
- After reviewing transparencies of both paintings, the Hoffmanns confirmed their desire to purchase 'Grey # 1'.
- In reliance on the alleged sale, the Hoffmanns included 'Grey # 1' in a listing of their collection for a planned exhibition at Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul and Camille Hoffmann filed a lawsuit against Mary Boone in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking either the painting or monetary damages.
- Boone filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the alleged oral contract was unenforceable under the UCC statute of frauds.
- In response to the motion, both parties submitted affidavits presenting their versions of the events.
- The plaintiffs requested that the court convert the defendant's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted the request and treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
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 the doctrine of promissory estoppel prevent the application of the UCC's statute of frauds to enforce an alleged oral contract for the sale of a painting where the plaintiff's alleged injuries consist of travel expenses, forgoing other purchasing opportunities, and professional embarrassment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mukasey, District Judge.
No, the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not prevent the application of the statute of frauds because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they suffered an unconscionable injury. The court first acknowledged that the alleged oral contract for a painting over $500 falls under the UCC's statute of frauds, requiring a written agreement. The court rejected the 'judicial admission' exception because Boone denied the contract in a sworn affidavit. The court then assumed, without a definitive ruling from New York's highest court, that promissory estoppel can be an exception to the UCC statute of frauds. To establish promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must show: (1) a clear and unambiguous promise, (2) reasonable and foreseeable reliance, and (3) an unconscionable injury. Even assuming a clear promise and reliance, the court concluded the Hoffmanns' alleged injuries—travel costs, forgoing the purchase of other paintings, and embarrassment from withdrawing the painting from a museum exhibit—do not rise to the level of 'unconscionable.' These harms are classified as 'the usual disappointment that attends a failed deal,' not the substantial and severe harm required by New York law to override the statutory requirement for a written contract.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold for invoking promissory estoppel to defeat a statute of frauds defense under the New York UCC. It establishes that routine transactional costs and non-quantifiable harms like embarrassment or missed opportunities are insufficient to constitute 'unconscionable injury.' The decision reinforces the primacy of the writing requirement for high-value sales of goods, signaling that parties, even those with a history of oral dealings, rely on unwritten promises at their own peril. It significantly narrows the practical availability of the promissory estoppel exception, requiring a plaintiff to show substantial, out-of-pocket losses directly tied to reliance on the oral promise.
