Krahmer v. Christie's Inc.
2006 WL 4782302, 903 A.2d 773, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 104 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'inherently unknowable injury' doctrine does not toll the statute of limitations for claims regarding the authenticity of a work of art because its genuineness is discoverable through the exercise of reasonable due diligence, such as obtaining an independent appraisal, and a buyer who fails to do so is not 'blamelessly ignorant.' Furthermore, a claim for negligent misrepresentation requires a special relationship of trust and confidence that does not exist in an ordinary auction house transaction between a buyer and the seller's agent.
Facts:
- On December 5, 1986, Johannes and Betty Krahmer purchased a painting attributed to artist Frank Weston Benson from Christie's, Inc., an auction house.
- After the purchase, Christie's provided the Krahmers with a nameplate identifying the painting as belonging to the Detroit Club and told them the club had purchased it directly from the artist.
- In 1990, Christie's provided the Krahmers with an updated appraisal that confirmed the painting's authenticity.
- In 1999, the Krahmers began their own research into the painting's history and learned of a similar Benson painting, but were not advised that their painting might be a forgery.
- In the spring of 2002, the Krahmers attempted to sell the painting through Sotheby’s auction house.
- On September 26, 2002, a restorer hired by Sotheby’s expressed concern that the painting was not authentic, marking the first time the Krahmers suspected it was a fake.
- On October 20, 2003, the Benson Catalogue Raisonné Committee issued a report concluding that the Krahmers' painting was a forgery.
- Following the report, the Krahmers requested that Christie's rescind the 1986 sale, but Christie's refused, citing its expired six-year warranty of authenticity.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 29, 2004, Johannes and Betty Krahmer (petitioners) filed a petition for rescission against Christie's, Inc. (defendant) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging fraud.
- After the parties engaged in discovery, the Krahmers filed a motion to amend their petition to add new claims for mutual mistake of fact, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud.
- Christie's opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments were futile because the new claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations and failed to state a valid claim for negligent misrepresentation.
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 'inherently unknowable injury' doctrine toll the three-year statute of limitations for claims of negligent misrepresentation and constructive fraud when the purchasers of a painting did not discover it was a forgery until sixteen years after the sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamb, Vice Chancellor
No. The 'inherently unknowable injury' doctrine does not toll the statute of limitations because the authenticity of a work of art is not an injury that is unknowable to a 'blamelessly ignorant' plaintiff. The court reasoned that the three-year statute of limitations began to run at the time of the injury in 1986. The tolling doctrine from Layton v. Allen, which applies to injuries like a surgical instrument left in a patient's body, is narrowly construed and requires that a plaintiff be 'blamelessly ignorant.' Here, the Krahmers were not blamelessly ignorant because a prudent buyer of valuable art can and should verify its authenticity with an independent appraisal. Unlike a hidden medical injury, the authenticity of a painting is discoverable through reasonable due diligence, and the information was not exclusively held by Christie's. Citing Rosen v. Spanierman, the court affirmed that requiring a buyer to get a second opinion from an expert is not an onerous burden. Therefore, because the Krahmers could have discovered the forgery within the limitations period, the doctrine does not apply, and the new claims are time-barred. Additionally, the court found the negligent misrepresentation claim would fail on its merits because under New York law, such a claim requires a special or fiduciary relationship, which does not exist between a buyer and an auction house acting as an agent for the seller.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the 'inherently unknowable injury' doctrine in Delaware, particularly in the context of commercial transactions for high-value goods like art. It places a clear burden of due diligence on purchasers, reinforcing the principle of caveat emptor (buyer beware) in auction settings. The ruling establishes that the failure to independently verify an item's authenticity prevents a buyer from being considered 'blamelessly ignorant,' thereby precluding the tolling of the statute of limitations. This precedent makes it more difficult for purchasers to bring claims for misrepresentation discovered long after a sale, protecting sellers and intermediaries from stale claims and promoting finality in commercial transactions.
