12 P.3d 238 (2000)
Personal representatives hired an appraiser to appraise personal property in preparation for an estate sale. The appraiser told the personal representatives that she did not appraise fine art and that, if she saw any, they would need to hire an additional appraiser. The appraiser did not report finding any fine art, and relying on her silence and her appraisal, personal representatives priced and sold plaintiff estate's personal property. Responding to a newspaper ad, defendant buyer attended the estate sale and paid the asking price of $ 60 for two oil paintings. An auction house authenticated the paintings as the work of Martin Johnson Heade, and it sold the paintings for $ 1,072,000. Defendants realized $ 911,780 from the sale. Plaintiff sued defendant, alleging the sale contract should be rescinded or reformed on grounds of mutual mistake and unconscionability.
- The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants.
- Plaintiff was a victim of its own folly, and it was reasonable for trial court to allocate to it the burden of its mistake.
- While the results of the transaction may have seemed unconscionable to plaintiff in hindsight, the terms of the contract were not.
Summary judgment affirmed. It was reasonable for trial court to allocate to plaintiff estate the burden of its mistake. The terms of the contract for the sale of the two paintings were not unconscionable, as the transaction involved no negotiation, plaintiff dictated the terms of the contract by naming a price for each painting, and defendant paid the asking prices.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.