Krahmer v. Christie's Inc.
911 A.2d 399, 2006 Del. Ch. LEXIS 186, 2006 WL 4782304 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To succeed on a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must produce evidence of scienter, meaning the defendant knew a representation was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Furthermore, a claim filed after the statute of limitations has run will be time-barred, as the doctrine of fraudulent concealment only tolls the statute until the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered, the injury.
Facts:
- In 1986, the auction house Christie's, Inc. took a painting titled 'Interior,' purportedly by artist Frank Weston Benson, on consignment from the Detroit Club.
- Christie's employee, Jay Cantor, researched the painting's provenance, which indicated it was acquired by the Club in 1914 and had been previously appraised as a genuine Benson.
- Christie's own experts examined the painting's style, subject matter, and signature, concluding they were consistent with Benson's known work.
- On December 5, 1986, Johannes and Betty Krahmer purchased the painting at a Christie's auction, which was governed by a six-year limited warranty of authenticity.
- In November 1999, while seeking to authenticate the work, the Krahmers learned of the existence of a strikingly similar painting housed in a Connecticut museum.
- In the spring of 2002, Sotheby’s auction house declined to sell the painting after its restorer expressed cautious concern that it might be a forgery.
- Following the Sotheby's decision, an expert committee formally determined that the painting purchased by the Krahmers was not an authentic work by Benson.
- Upon this determination, the Krahmers requested that Christie's rescind the 1986 sale, but Christie's refused, citing the expiration of the six-year warranty.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 29, 2004, Johannes and Betty Krahmer filed a petition for rescission against Christie's, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the trial court), alleging fraud.
- In January 2006, the Krahmers moved to amend their petition to add claims for mutual mistake, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud.
- In June 2006, the Court of Chancery denied the Krahmers' motion to amend, ruling that the proposed claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
- The Delaware Supreme Court (the state's highest court) denied the Krahmers' request to appeal the interlocutory order.
- Christie's subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Chancery on the remaining fraud claim.
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 an auction house commit fraud by selling a painting that is later discovered to be a forgery when the plaintiff presents no evidence that the auction house knew of or recklessly disregarded its inauthenticity, and is such a claim, filed nearly 18 years after the sale, barred by the statute of limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamb, Vice Chancellor
No. A claim for fraud requires proof of scienter, and a cause of action is barred if filed after the statute of limitations has expired and cannot be tolled by fraudulent concealment. First, the Krahmers failed to produce any evidence from which a court could infer that Christie's acted with scienter. The uncontradicted evidence showed that Christie's conducted due diligence consistent with industry standards by examining the painting's provenance and physical characteristics, and all signs pointed to its authenticity. Christie's had a good-faith basis to believe the painting was genuine, which negates the element of knowing or reckless misrepresentation required for fraud. At most, the facts might support a claim for negligence, but not fraud. Second, the claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, which began running at the time of the sale in 1986. The Krahmers' argument for tolling based on fraudulent concealment fails because Christie's post-sale actions, such as offering appraisals, were standard customer service and not an 'actual artifice' designed to deceive. Even if fraudulent concealment had occurred, the statute would only be tolled until the Krahmers were on 'inquiry notice' of a potential problem, which occurred at the latest in 1999 when they discovered the similar painting. By waiting until 2004 to file their petition, they were well outside the limitations period.
Analysis:
This case highlights the stringent requirements for proving common law fraud, particularly the element of scienter. It establishes that a good-faith belief in the truth of a representation, supported by reasonable due diligence according to industry standards, can defeat a fraud claim even if the representation turns out to be false. The decision also reinforces the limits of tolling doctrines like fraudulent concealment, placing a burden on plaintiffs to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating their claims once they are put on notice of a potential injury. This provides significant protection to sellers, like auction houses, from stale claims where evidence and memories have faded over time.
