Reference no: EM133935679

Question

The Skipper, Gilligan, and several other companions decided to take a three-hour tour on the S.S. Minnow. Unfortunately, for them, the S.S. Minnow sank. Luckily, one of the survivors, Gilligan had a "ticket" pinned to the inside of his jacket. Many years later upon his death, Gilligan had left his nephew, Steamboat Willy the ticket and some postcards relating to the S.S. Minnow in his will. The ticket was in very good condition and was one-of-a-kind. Steamboat Willy needed some extra money and went to the biggest antique dealer he knew. The dealer was Fred Sandford of Sandford and Sons. Steamboat Willy asked Fred about the value of the items he had inherited. Steamboat Willy claimed that Fred told him the items were not worth much, however, he could come back later. Upon Steamboat Willy's return, Fred still claimed that the items were not worth nothing and that he could not get more than $475 for them. Steamboat Willy was in desperate need of money and asked Fred if he would purchase the items for $1,200. Fred paid him $1,200 for the items.

Ten months later, Fred sold the ticket for $150,000 and the postcards for $2,000 each at a nationally advertised auction. Upon learning of this sale, Steamboat Willy sued Fred for fraud. At trial, Steamboat Willy produced testimony showing that Fred was a major buyer in antiques and collectibles in the area and he would have had an understanding of the value of the items, particularly the ticket. Fred claimed that he did not commit fraud because Steamboat Willy did not rely on his representations and that they had an arm's-length transaction. He also claimed that Steamboat Willy had access to the same information that he had. How will the court decide this scenario?