Blumstein v. Sports Immortals, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
67 So. 3d 437 (2011)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Athanasios Karahalios sought to borrow $203,000 from Jeffrey Phillips, with the loan to be secured by a montage of photographs, baseball cards, and signatures of the original inductees to Major League Baseball’s hall of fame (montage). Phillips agreed on the condition that the montage be appraised to be worth at least $300,000. Accordingly, Karahalios, Phillips, and Blumstein (plaintiff), Phillips’s associate, visited the office of Sports Immortals, Inc. (Immortals) (defendant), which held itself out as an expert in authenticating and appraising sports memorabilia. The parties informed Immortals and its representative Joel Platt (defendant) that they were seeking an appraisal in connection with a potential loan to be secured by the montage. Platt appraised the montage as being worth between $350,000 and $400,000, based in large part on the montage’s autographs. Immortals did not charge a fee for Platt’s appraisal. Based on this appraisal, Phillips made the loan. When Karahalios defaulted on the loan, Phillips sought to sell the montage, but he was unable to do so because the autographs turned out to be inauthentic. Immortals did, however, offer to buy other memorabilia from him for $2,700. Blumstein, who acquired Phillips’s claim by assignment, sued Immortals and Platt for negligent misrepresentation in connection with Platt’s appraisal. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Blumstein appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gross, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.