## Facts

- Stanley Fingerhut was a wealthy, sophisticated stock broker who ran a private investment company (Mt. Vernon Associates) but had a history of manic-depressive mental illness.
- Seeking to buy a country club, Fingerhut investigated the Bel Aire Golf & Country Club and obtained a written appraisal earlier in 1968.
- On September 22, 1968, Fingerhut and Kralyn Enterprises, Inc. negotiated a deal at the club in the presence of counsel for both sides; Fingerhut’s attorney drafted a handwritten binder reflecting a $3,075,000 purchase price, and Fingerhut paid $25,000.
- After further negotiations at Fingerhut’s counsel’s office, the parties executed a formal written contract on September 26, 1968; Fingerhut paid an additional $200,000, for total contract payments of $225,000 toward the purchase price.
- The agreement set a closing date and included provisions addressing existing mortgages on the property and the parties’ responsibilities relating to them.
- After signing, Fingerhut continued to deal with the transaction, including exercising contractual rights concerning the timing of the closing.
- Fingerhut later sent notice to Kralyn claiming he had been manic at the time of contracting and demanded rescission and return of the $225,000.
- Kralyn refused to rescind. Fingerhut sued in New York Supreme Court, New York County, seeking rescission and restitution of the down payment based on lack of mental capacity.
- At a bench trial, Fingerhut called psychiatrists who opined he was psychotic/manic when he signed the binder and contract; Kralyn’s psychiatrists testified he had capacity. Lay witnesses likewise conflicted on whether Fingerhut’s conduct around the signing was “bizarre” or businesslike.
- Fingerhut did not testify. Kralyn also relied on an alternative defense that, even if Fingerhut had been impaired at execution, he later affirmed the agreement by his post-contract conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Fingerhut proved he lacked the mental capacity to contract when he executed the binder and the formal purchase agreement, making the contract voidable.
2. If the contract was voidable when made, whether Fingerhut’s later conduct after any claimed recovery amounted to ratification that barred rescission.
3. If the contract was enforceable and Fingerhut was an unexcused defaulting purchaser, whether he could recover the $225,000 down payment.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Fingerhut’s rescission claim and denied recovery of the $225,000.
- The court found Fingerhut did not carry his burden to prove incapacity at the time of contracting; the evidence of his investigation of the property, the lawyer-assisted negotiations, and his behavior during the deal supported a finding that he understood the transaction and acted rationally in relation to it.
- Alternatively, the court held that even assuming temporary impairment, Fingerhut’s post-execution conduct—treating the contract as operative and exercising rights under it—constituted ratification after any alleged period of incapacity.
- Because the contract stood and Fingerhut failed to complete the purchase without a legally sufficient excuse, the court applied New York’s rule that a defaulting buyer generally cannot reclaim a down payment absent an express contractual right to do so.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking rescission for mental incapacity must prove that, at the time of contracting, the party could not understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or could not act reasonably in relation to it.
- A history of mental illness does not, by itself, void a contract; capacity is assessed at the time the agreement is made.
- Courts may weigh contemporaneous conduct and objective transaction facts (investigation, negotiation with counsel, and business behavior) when choosing between conflicting psychiatric opinions.
- Even if a contract is voidable for incapacity, it may be ratified after the person regains capacity; conduct consistent with affirmance (including exercising contractual rights) can bar later rescission.
- Under New York law, when an enforceable real-estate purchase contract exists and the buyer defaults without a valid excuse, the buyer generally may not recover the down payment in the absence of a contractual provision allowing recovery.

## Conclusion

In *Fingerhut v. Kralyn Enterprises, Inc.*, the New York Supreme Court denied rescission and restitution because Fingerhut failed to prove he lacked capacity when he entered the country-club purchase agreement, and, in any event, his subsequent acts treated the contract as valid and amounted to ratification; as an unexcused defaulting purchaser, he could not recover the $225,000 down payment.


Fingerhut v. Kralyn Enterprises, Inc., 337 N.Y.S.2d 394 (1971)