Graffman v. Espel
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
1998 WL 55371 (1998)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Sture Graffman (plaintiff) authorized Miguel Espel (defendant) to act as his agent in selling Graffman’s valuable painting. Espel asked Michael Delecea (defendant) to assist with the sale, and Espel delivered the painting to Delecea’s custody. Graffman made no objection, knowing Delecea to be a reputable art dealer. Avanti Gallery (Avanti) (defendant) purchased the painting from Delecea and resold it to two good customers, John and Jane Doe (defendants). When none of the purchase money reached Graffman, he charged Espel, Delecea, Avanti, and the Does with conversion and sued them in federal court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kram, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 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.