posted on October 31, 2000 11:31:50 AM
Wow...now there's a dilemma! As a thrift-store shopper and treasure hunter, I would want to keep my find--absolutely! Yet, if it were truly a mistake, and it belonged to my relative, and I had NEVER intended to donate it---I'd sure as heck want it back! Methinks we need to know more--when did the loser start looking for it, when did the finder know someone else wanted it back, and has it been sold yet (thus complicating things even more)?
posted on October 31, 2000 11:36:55 AM
Personally, I think if the person who "accidentally" threw out the painting wins this suit, we're all in big trouble! There's no way he should win. With as much information available in this world of the internet and heck even your local library there's no reason anyone can't get information on an item they have in their possession, especially someone put in charge of settling an estate! Just my two cents worth!
posted on October 31, 2000 11:56:02 AM
It's probably a good thing I'm not the judge. I can't stand whiners, and not only would find in favor of the lucky consumer who purchased the painting from the Thrift Store, but would tell the person suing that as adults, we must face up to the results of all our actions, even the mistakes.
posted on October 31, 2000 12:00:27 PM
How the "loser" (apt term, IMHO) know (a) that the painting ended up at the Salvation Army and (b) who bought it?
posted on October 31, 2000 12:22:38 PM
I wonder *who* put it in the box for salvation army? If SA themselves showed up to cart off the items, and accidentally picked up the picture, then the original owner of this actually might have a good case for getting the picture back.
If the family did themselves, one wonders if they did truly know, *at that time*, the value of the painting. One might suspect not in this case, and thus it should be "too bad" for them.
posted on October 31, 2000 12:31:26 PM
I confess that I fail to see the connection as to whether or not the buyer knew what the painting was worth.
People buy stuff for resale all the time playing the odds that the item is worth more than they paid for it!
If the buyer didn't know what it was worth, then he was lucky. If the buyer knew what it was worth, then he was shrewd. No crime in that, is there?
posted on October 31, 2000 12:40:24 PM
That was my thought exactly. I thought part of the point to "thrift" shopping was to make those great "finds". We're now supposed to pick up those nifty items and interrogate the store staff as to where they came from and if they're SURE the donor really wanted to sell them? I have to agree--the family that "accidentally" donated the painting has no room to whine. They should have been more careful.
always pickersangel everywhere
[ edited by pickersangel on Oct 31, 2000 12:59 PM ]
posted on October 31, 2000 01:11:07 PM
What I want to know is how the guy who was careless enough to put a $30K painting a box for the SA *find* the person who bought it from the SA?
When I go to the SA and buy stuff no one asks for my name. Does this mean that the original owner of dirty old mug I bought for a quarter that was sold for several hundred will be able to find me?
posted on October 31, 2000 01:19:29 PM
Presumably the person who got the painting bragged/told someone they got it for nothing from the SA. Once one person knew, the story probably travelled quickly. It usually isn't hard to trace valuable things like that back to a previous owner. It isn't clear who found who, in this case.
Remember that we don't know *who* put the picture into the SA box. At least the story doesn't say.
posted on October 31, 2000 01:30:53 PM
And then...do the courts decide how much profit is a fair profit...?
For instance. Many antiques dealers feel that doubling their money is the only way to make money on a purchase. They pay $10...sell for $20...great. No one quibbles. What if they pay $50,000...sell for $100,000? Certainly possible in the case of paintings. Can you say lawsuit? If the original seller discovers the dealers sale price, it's certainly more than possible. And consider that, in my scenario, the dealer paid the asking price of $50 large...no appraisal involved.
posted on October 31, 2000 01:32:18 PM"But Fenn said someone with Kenyon's vast knowledge of Western art who sees such a painting priced at just $25 should have known something was wrong."
Something was wrong? Huh? I'd say something was very right. I've scored items from the local thrift stores for next to nothing, & sold some of them on eBay for thousands of $$$.
Ya snooze ya lose. The only mistake the buyer made was opening his yapper up after the fact.
posted on October 31, 2000 01:43:49 PM
I guess the thing I find most troubling is... Why is the buyer in any way responsible for the (supposed) mixup?
It seems to me that the individual who either put the item in the box of things going to the SA or who gave the SA pickup crew permission to take it is the responsible party. Of course, if that individual was one of the family members, they would have to sue themselves.
It's quite a stretch to assume the buyer has any responsibility to verify how a store came into possession of its' inventory. Does this mean that the next time I'm buying a TV at Circuit City, I need to ask to see their invoices, to be sure I'm not buying stolen merchandise?
posted on October 31, 2000 01:58:23 PM
As always, these type posts are very interesting.
In this case what comes to mind is this. The party who was in charge of the estate, if they were the Executor, may be doing this to save face and avoid liability.
Why? Because it is their fiduciary duty to maximize the return on ALL the assets of the estate that they are entrusted with and, if this was given away due to their carelessness & one of the heirs/legatees is of a mind to do so, this Executor could be liable for his error.
To accept the responsibility of being an Executor or Trustee of someones Estate is not a responsibility to be taken lightly or is one to be considered free of risk.
Oh....and I would guess that the odds of getting another such steal from that SA outlet have been somewhat reduced for quite sometime.
Dr. Trooth
P.S. - MHO is that the case will be thrown out, as, on the face of it, it seems to be without merit. Originator - Please let us know how this comes out.
posted on October 31, 2000 02:07:17 PM
My thoughts exactly, DrT. Heirs are mad at the nitwit executor, and may be demanding he reimburse them for the loss, so he's trying to pass the blame (and the cost) on to anybody else he can think of. Suing the SallyAnn doesn't make for good PR (or maybe he's already tried that and the case was dismissed), so he goes after the "businessman" (what does that mean?) with the ostensibly deep pockets.
posted on October 31, 2000 02:13:04 PMOriginator - Please let us know how this comes out.
I'll try, but the story wasn't written by a local reporter, as far as I can tell (there's no byline- it just says Associated Press), and I'm not sure of the track record of the newspaper when it comes to follow-ups of an AP story.
posted on October 31, 2000 02:18:00 PM
"how the guy who was careless enough to put a $30K painting a box for the SA *find* the person who bought it from the SA? "
The action all took place in Sheridan Wyoming, and it's not a large town. Buyer owns a consignment store, donator-to-SalvationArmy probably walked past and saw the pricetag on the "junk" painting.
posted on October 31, 2000 02:43:43 PM
I recall a local case a few years ago where someone accidentally gave a food drive collection a cache of considerable value in a safe disguised as a soup can. In that case the goods were returned to the original owner.
posted on October 31, 2000 04:45:06 PM
Oh, wait! Most "estates" have little or nothing of huge value. If the heirs were sorting things out and knew that painting was valuable, wouldn't they have looked for it in the days to come, after they'd sorted and donated stuff? Surrrrrely in a two-year time period *someone* in that family would have said, "Wait, DeWayne [this IS Idaho, after all!], whatever became of that very valuable painting we were all wrangling over? Who got it?"
This case, so far, just reeks of seller's very belated two-year remorse!
[ edited by roadsmith on Oct 31, 2000 04:46 PM ]
posted on October 31, 2000 05:49:22 PM
Hey Reddeer you could be heading for trouble with our little friend. Did I ever mention that I didn't mean to put him in that box.
Can you imagine the phone calls to every thrift shop in the World after each and every episode of The Antiques Roadshow. How I pray this court application fails. Always searching for Heffalumps
posted on October 31, 2000 06:45:29 PM
Am I reading the article wrong or does it not say that the man donated the painting TWO YEARS ago? C'mon! I don't remember what I donated two days ago!
I worked at my local Salvation Army Thrift Store back in the early 90's -- pre-eBay so we didnt have these dilemma's-- however, there were times someone accidently donated something. When they did, they called or came to the store IMMEDIATELY to retrieve their item(s).
posted on October 31, 2000 06:57:15 PM
In terms of the "two year" span that several people have commented on, let me point just point out:
The lawsuit was filed "last year", and there may well have been private negotiation before that (which must have failed, obviously), and also some time before that to find the location of the painting, so anyone who is focusing on the "two years" may be barking up the wrong tree.
by the way, since this article gives no idea of the size of the estate, there is no reason to assume that it was small and/or should have taken a short period of time to deal with it. Depending on the size and location of the family, businesses involved, how dedicated the person was, etc., its not unusual to take a number of months, or even longer, to fully settle an estate.
The problem with these articles is that they don't really give enough facts, and its tempting to make assumptions to fill them in.
posted on October 31, 2000 06:58:01 PM
(Standard Disclaimer: This is not legal advice and I am not an attorney, so this is just my opinion.)
Whether the buyer gets to keep the painting or not is likely to depend on contract law/ past cases in his state. However, the general principle is that in cases like this, where A gets a huge bargain at B's expense because B either made a dumb mistake (like reading the price on a 600 item as 6 dollars) or lacked knowledge, then A will be liable if A had knowledge/could have clarified and didn't. In other words, the person who knew that the item was much, much more valuable had a legal duty to clarify the value of the item prior to the transaction.
Jurisdictions and experts differ on whether the correct standard is "A definitely knew the value and is therefore liable" or "A had reason to know (less definite) and is therefore liable".
In this case, it looks like the buyer was an expert at this type of art and therefore knew it was worth much more than what he paid, so if the contract law in his state follows the general principle, there is a good chance he will be liable here.
The cases studied in law school usually make the problem more difficult by using a buyer whose knowledge is more questionable, such as a minor (i.e. is the minor less knowing because he is young, or is the fact that the minor knows a lot about baseball cards sufficient to make him an "expert" even though he is only 10 years old?).
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on October 31, 2000 08:21:06 PM
Net law, your analysis applies where there is a contractual negotiation between two parties but it doesn't apply here -- the SA go in the middle of this. And there is no contract negotiation that we are aware of between the buyer and the SA, the buyer simply paid SAs price.
Buyer gotta win here.
Estate should sue executor or executor should sue SA.
posted on October 31, 2000 08:22:12 PM
Problem is, netlaw, that there was NO contractual relationship between B, our "loser" and A, the buyer of the painting. The only "contract", if it can be characterized as such, was between the buyer and the Salvation Army, or between the Salvation Army and the "loser".
Moreover, I doubt that any judge would consider it reasonable that a customer of a charity resale shop be required, either before or after purchasing an item, to trace the item's donor in order to inform the donor of its value (and, as our loser appears to want, offer to return it to that donor). If such efforts are indeed required of anybody, the burden should rest on the shop, not its customers.
In that case, the only way a charity resale shop could protect itself from litigation would be to obtain contact information for every donor and employ an appraiser to examine each donation lot as it arrives (which would preclude the use of drop boxes), and have the appraiser contact each donor of any item of any value to confirm that the donation was indeed intended and that the donor is aware of the item's value.
posted on October 31, 2000 08:35:06 PM
The "boxes with contents" that went to the SA were a "gift" and required no consideration from the SA, and the gift was completed- i.e., the property was transferred to the SA.
However, the donor claimed mistake in the picture being included.
There are cases when property is misplaced, or unintentionally discarded that the property must be returned to the rightful owner - if known. What do you think the outcome should be if the painting had fallen off a truck and someone found it, or an employee mistakenly gave one painting of an enormous value instead of the rightful one of much lesser value, or your 70 year old mother sold the $7000 silver service for $10 at a garage sale ?
If the "mistaken donation" is shown to be the case, then the property must be returned. Since it was not the intent of the donor to give the property in question. Three things will be important in proving this. First, did the donor et al make any accounting for the value of the painting prior to the time of the " mistaken donation" ? Second, is there any evidence that the painting was not intended to be part of the donation and what is this evidence, other than the donor wouldn't give such a valuable painting away ? Third, what actions did the donor take when it was discovered the painting was missing, such as timeliness, efforts of search and attempted recovery. If it is shown that the SA did not have title to the property due to mistake, then there can be no transfer of the property to an "innocent" purchaser or otherwise. "Snooze ya Lose" is not a legal priciple.
The reason that the "innocent" purchaser is being scrutinized for superior knowledge of the value of the painting comes from " Pawn Shop Rules" in which a buyer is not "innocent" when it is shown that the transaction is unreasonable under the circumstances, with divisions under a subjective or objective test. This mainly is used to overcome an "innocent" or "bona fide" purchaser claim regarding stolen property, as it prevents Pawn and second hand merchandise operations from actually being a fencing of stolen property operation.
I should like to see what evidence of mistake the donor can show.
posted on October 31, 2000 08:52:02 PM
Wellll, I'm only going to get interested if the painting shows up on ebay w/a small hole in it caused by an errant tricycle, right near the artist's supposed signature.
