You are here: / / POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY...

POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MUTUAL MISTAKE ACTION.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined a question of fact precluded summary judgment in this “mutual mistake” action. Plaintiff purchased two artifacts which were supposed to be ancient. Both were subsequently deemed by experts to be modern in origin. Plaintiff sought to rescind the purchase as having been based upon mutual mistake. There was evidence, however, that plaintiff was aware the defendant had sold “fake” artifacts in the past, raising an issue of fact about the applicability of the “conscious ignorance” exception the mutual mistake doctrine:

The doctrine of mutual mistake “may not be invoked by a party to avoid the consequences of its own negligence” … . Where a party “in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known or could easily have ascertained” the relevant fact … – here, whether the items were ancient – that party is deemed to have been “[c]onscious[ly] ignoran[t]” and barred from seeking rescission … or other damages. This is true “[e]ven where a party must go beyond its own efforts in order to ascertain relevant facts (such as obtaining experts’ reports)” … .

The conscious ignorance exception applies only where a party is aware that his knowledge is limited but decides to contract anyway “in the hope that the facts accord with his wishes,” thus assuming “[t]he risk of the existence of the doubtful fact . . . as one of the elements of the bargain” … .

We agree with the dissent that both plaintiff and defendants shared the mistaken belief that the Faustina Bust and the Etruscan Warrior were “ancient.” Where we diverge is that we find that the record at this time does not support a finding that [plaintiff] did not consciously ignore his uncertainty as to a crucial fact … . Jerome M. Eisenberg, Inc. v Hall, 2017 NY Slip Op 01437, 1st Dept 2-23-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MUTUAL MISTAKE ACTION)/MUTUAL MISTAKE (CONTRACT LAW, POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MUTUAL MISTAKE ACTION)/CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE (CONTRACT LAW, MUTUAL MISTAKE, POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MUTUAL MISTAKE ACTION)/RESCISSION (CONTRACT LAW, MUTUAL MISTAKE, POSSIBLE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSCIOUS IGNORANCE DOCTRINE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MUTUAL MISTAKE ACTION)

You might also like
IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE CONTRACT ALLOWS REFUSAL OF LOANS FOR ANY REASON, EVEN THOUGH THE REFUSAL MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT PUTTING PLAINTIFF OUT OF BUSINESS.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” BY PRESENTING SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE LEGALITY OF POLICE CONDUCT AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED DEFENDANT WERE MADE AWARE OF THE CO-DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE ARREST; THE FACT THAT GAPS IN THE PEOPLE’S PROOF MAY HAVE BEEN FILLED IN BY THE DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING DIDN’T CURE THE DEFICIENCY (FIRST DEPT).
THE REQUEST TO POLL THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISCHARGED THE JURY FOREMAN FOR ARGUING WITH ONE OR MORE JURORS WITHOUT INTERVIEWING ALL INVOLVED (FIRST DEPT).
Supervision, Even If Inadequate, Could Not Have Prevented Injury Caused by the Sudden, Unanticipated Act of Another Student—Summary Judgment to Defendant Properly Granted
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 193, IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES, AND LABOR LAW 215, TERMINATION FOR COMPLAINING OF THE IMPROPER DEDUCTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD BUT THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTUAL FRAUD WERE NOT MET (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER THE TWO OFFENSES, WHICH OCCURRED ON DIFFERENT DATES AND WERE UNRELATED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD COMMITTED MURDER, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FILM... CONTRACT FOR INTERIOR DECORATOR SERVICES AND THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES...