United States: Evaluating Clarity In Diamond Transactions

Last Updated: November 6 2018
Article by Peter Rossi and Troy Shuman

How US law sorts diamond sales, memos, consignments and entrustments

We have written in the past regarding some of the different issues which can arise when trying to determine the legal nature of a sale and the passing of title. Insurers of fine art and specie risks are especially familiar with such questions arising in the context of consignments, loans, entrustments, bailments, and other transfers or exchanges of such property. For insurers of fine art and specie these issues can be central to coverage determinations, recovery/subrogation and when dealing with bankruptcy of an insured or an insured with goods in the possession of a bankrupt third-party.

The fundamental question at issue in these situations is the ownership of the property and the right to possession. This question has long vexed the law and created impediments to the free flow of commerce. In the 1950s the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute promulgated the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC has been adopted in almost every state and, in most instances, governs the passage of title to personal property. While the UCC addresses many issues, Articles 1, 2 and 9 sit at the center of any evaluation of title arising out of goods delivered by memo, consignment, entrustment, or various forms of sale.

A recent case addressing an ownership dispute over a four carat flawless blue diamond raises some questions as to how courts will evaluate ownership disputes relating to diamonds sent out on memo in the future.

In June 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down Mellen Inc. v. Biltmore Loan and Jewelry-Scottsdale LLC,726 F.App'x. 635 (9th Cir. 2018). That case affirmed a decision of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, ruling in favor of the plaintiff (the original owner of a diamond) in his suit to recover the diamond from a pawnbroker who had purchased the diamond from a third party. Mellen Inc. v. Biltmore Loan and Jewelry-Scottsdale LLC, 247 F.Supp.3d 1084 (D. Ariz. 2017) (Mellen).

The transactions worked as follows: the original owner sent the blue diamond on memo to a diamond dealer in Florida. The diamond dealer used a front man—representing that he owned the diamond—to obtain a USD 1 million loan from the pawnbroker in Arizona. Later the pawnbroker bought the diamond for USD 1.3 million, which was paid for by forgiving the debt plus payment for the balance owed on the sale price. In a subsequent ownership dispute between the pawnbroker and the original owner, the court ruled in favor of the original owner. In doing so, the court evaluated the respective rights of the parties pursuant to various provisions of the UCC.

To understand the ruling in Mellen it is important to provide a brief review of the purpose and structure of UCC §2-403. As a general matter, §2-403 arises in the article of the UCC dealing with the sale of goods (Article 2). Its purpose is to provide some certainty to sale transactions, in part, by protecting good faith purchasers and those who buy from merchants in the ordinary course of business. The statute has two sections.

Section 2-403(1) addresses the sale of property by someone who obtained that property in a "transaction of purchase." It expressly provides that even if the party obtaining the property does so through larcenous means, that party will have voidable title and can pass good title to a good faith purchaser for value. In doing so, the statute protects the good faith purchaser over the original owner, placing the risk of the transaction on the original owner/seller even if they were tricked into turning over their property rather than the subsequent good faith purchaser. In some ways the provision acts as a very limited exception to the traditional rule that a thief cannot pass good title.

Section 2-403(2) addresses the entrustment of property to merchants who deal in such goods. It provides that if someone holding good title or voidable title to certain goods entrusts those goods to a merchant who deals in goods of that kind, then the merchant can pass good title to a buyer in the ordinary course of business. This is true even if the merchant was given no right to sell the good and would be converting the property by selling it. By allowing the buyer in the ordinary course to take good title the statute protects the finality of the sale and puts the risk of loss on the entrustor rather than the buyer in the ordinary course.

Whether certain goods are considered to fall under 2-403(1) (based upon a transaction of purchase) or 2-403(2) (based upon an entrustment to a merchant dealing in goods of those kind) can impact the outcome of any subsequent evaluation of ownership. This is because section (1) allows a good faith purchaser to take good title and section (2) requires the purchaser to be a buyer in the ordinary course of dealing. A separate article could be written on the distinction between a good faith purchaser and a buyer in the ordinary course of dealing. Though they are often used interchangeably, they reflect different standards. For the purpose of this article we will limit our comment to simply note that the buyer in the ordinary course standard has a narrower and more limited scope and, as such, is generally more difficult to satisfy.

The Mellen Court did not compare the two standards. Rather the court determined that the only standard at issue was the buyer in the ordinary course standard and ruled that it was not satisfied by the pawnbroker. It is not clear whether the pawnbroker would have satisfied the good faith purchaser standard, but there are some facts in the case which suggest that he might have.

In Mellen, the primary issue of the case was whether or not the rights of the parties were governed by 2-403(1) or 2-403(2). We address the 2-403(1) analysis first.

Though it is not discussed in the case, it should be understood that by giving the diamond to a front man to use as collateral for a loan and subsequently selling it for his own benefit, the diamond dealer committed a conversion of the diamond. These acts were clearly beyond the scope of his agency. However, the pawnbroker argued that his rights were governed by §2-403(1) and as such he argued that he took good title as a good faith purchaser. As noted above, the court avoided the issue of whether the pawnbroker qualified as a good faith purchaser by holding that §2-403(1) did not apply at all, which it resolved by ruling that the diamond was not delivered by the original owner to the diamond dealer pursuant to a "transaction of purchase."

The definition of transaction of purchase has been held to be "generally limited to those situations in which the party who delivered the goods to the subsequent seller intended, however misguidedly, that the seller would become the owner of the goods." See Zaretsky v. William Goldberg Diamond Corp., 820 F.3d 513, 525 (2d Cir.2016).

In reaching its holding that the delivery of the blue diamond on memo did not qualify as a "transaction of purchase" the Mellen Court focused on the following language included in the memo:

The merchandise described below, is delivered to you on memorandum...only for examination and inspection by prospective purchasers, upon the express condition that all such merchandise shall remain the property of [XYZ] and shall be returned on demand, in full in its original form... You acquire no right or authority to sell, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise dispose of the merchandise, or any part thereof, by memorandum or otherwise... A sale of all or any of the merchandise shall occur only if and when we agree and you shall have received from us a separate invoice...

The court ruled that by its express terms the quoted language in the memo ruled out the possibility that the diamond had been delivered in a "transaction of purchase."

The pawnbroker then argued that if it was not a transaction of purchase the delivery of the diamond was an entrustment to a merchant and under §2-403(2) he should be allowed to take good title as a buyer in the ordinary course of dealing from a merchant. Here, the court focused on the fact that the merchant used a front man for the transaction, who himself was not a merchant dealing in goods of that kind (according to the record he was in the vitamin supplement business), in order to hold that the pawnbroker did not buy the diamond from a merchant at all. In addition, the court relied upon the fact that the pawnbroker paid for a portion of the purchase price using credit it was owed from the original pawn loan, which under the statute meant it was not a transaction in the ordinary course of business.

Finally, the pawnbroker argued that under the UCC definition of a consignment, UCC §9-102(a)(20), he was able to take good title in his transaction. Under the UCC, subject to certain qualifications, a delivery of goods to a merchant for the purpose of sale is deemed a consignment. Notably, under the express statutory terms any efforts by the consignor/original owner to retain title when delivering goods to a merchant for the purpose of sale is treated as leaving the original owner with a mere security interest. Put another way, the statute provides that the consignee obtains whatever interest the consignor had and can transfer same. Again, the Mellen Court relied upon the above quoted memo language to reach the conclusion that the blue diamond was not delivered to the diamond dealer for "the purpose of sale."

Notably, the UCC expressly calls for the consideration of course of dealing, course of performance and usage of trade to provide the commercial context in which such an agreement is to be interpreted. §1-303(f). This means that when considering the language in a memo a court can go beyond what the words say and consider how the parties actually treat those words in practice. For example, if a memo contains language requiring a memo holder to seek permission before selling a diamond delivered under that memo, a court can consider evidence showing that sales were regularly made without seeking such permission. The same evidence would be relevant in considering the purpose or meaning of memo language stating that the memo holder does not have authority to sell the diamond. The statute allows a court to consider what the parties actually intended a transaction to be, and to give that intention greater weight than boilerplate language that is routinely ignored by the parties.

In its evaluation of the memo language the Mellen Court did not address any course of dealing between the original owner and the diamond dealer. It may be that there was no meaningful history of transactions between those parties. Were there such a history it may have impacted the ultimate conclusion of the court. The Court did address a usage in trade argument advanced by the pawnbroker, wherein he maintained that within the industry the term memo and consignment were interchangeable. The court rejected this argument by citing to an integration clause in the memo which expressly stated that no term could be varied based on custom of the trade.

As noted above, the UCC is designed to provide some uniformity across different states in how sale transactions and credit transactions are dealt with. Generally it succeeds in this regard. However, to the extent that the statute may also be designed to bring clarity to these situations, its ability to do so is always limited by the clarity of the underlying transactions themselves. In Mellen, the court chose to take the language in the memo at its face value and, in doing so, was able to bring some clarity to an otherwise complicated set of facts. In the broader context, the clarity of memo transactions will often depend upon how the memo terms are enforced by the parties in their day-to-day course of dealing and whether such enforcement or lack thereof creates a gap between what the memos say and what the parties actually do. Only after that determination is made, and a court understands the true purpose of the transaction, will it be able to know which UCC provision (if any) to apply and what it all means.

Though we do not address it here, in adopting the UCC states can modify the provisions and/or may have adopted different versions as the statutes is periodically updated. As such, any evaluation of these issues must begin with the relevant state version of the UCC. In addition, you must also consider any other statutes which might apply, including but not limited to, pawn broker statutes, second-hand dealer statutes and lost property statutes under state law and, on the federal level, the bankruptcy laws and forfeiture laws and any other statutes, rules or treaties, which might be relevant under the circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Peter Rossi
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions