An Examination of the Availability of Relief for Mistakes in Assumption under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977

Abstract

On 17 November 2010, a press release by the Fine Arts Society of New Zealand encountered such significant national interest that within three days it was published in The Northern Advocate, The Waikato Times and the Dominion Post. It told the story of a group of women who bought a painting for $5 at a Northland brica-brac sale. However, the painting was worth a great deal more than the loose change it was purchased with. A local art curator subsequently identified it as an original Lawren Harris and speculated that it might fetch more than $1 million at auction. The articles focused on the good fortune of the women. The misfortune of the sellers was not mentioned at all. I suspect the dominant reaction to the articles was that the sellers were “tough out of luck”; unfortunately for them they simply made a bad bargain. But the question arises, is any form of legal redress available to the sellers? In particular, is there jurisdiction to grant the seller relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977?