While visiting Sarah's art gallery, Mark spots what he believes is an original painting by the artist Vincent van Gogh and agrees to buy the painting from Sarah for $1,000,000. Upon returning home, Mark has the painting appraised and learns that it is not a Van Gogh and is worth only $100,000. Mark sends Sarah a letter saying that he bought the painting under false pretenses and will pay only the fair market value of the painting, enclosing a check for $100,000 with "payment in full" written in the memo line. Before depositing the check, Sarah crosses out Mark's note and writes "first partial payment" over it. The next day Sarah learns that Mark's check has bounced. If Sarah sues Mark, will the court find in her favor?

Question

Guest

Business

25 February, 11:38

While visiting Sarah's art gallery, Mark spots what he believes is an original painting by the artist Vincent van Gogh and agrees to buy the painting from Sarah for $1,000,000. Upon returning home, Mark has the painting appraised and learns that it is not a Van Gogh and is worth only $100,000. Mark sends Sarah a letter saying that he bought the painting under false pretenses and will pay only the fair market value of the painting, enclosing a check for $100,000 with "payment in full" written in the memo line. Before depositing the check, Sarah crosses out Mark's note and writes "first partial payment" over it. The next day Sarah learns that Mark's check has bounced. If Sarah sues Mark, will the court find in her favor?

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Shyanne Singh · Answer 1

The answer is: Yes

Explanation:

The court will rule in Sarah's favor simply because Mark's check bounced and no payment was done. Writing a bad check and knowing you didn't have the funds to cover it, is a crime (fraud).

Mark can argue that Sarah deceived him into believing the painting was an original Van Gogh, and that the price should be different. But even if they negotiated a new price, he still has to pay Sarah at least the fair market value.