Question: Mestrovic, the widow of an internationally known sculptor and artist, owned a large number of works of art created by her late husband. Mestrovic died, leaving a will in which she directed that all the works of art created by her husband were to be sold and the proceeds distributed to surviving members of the Mestrovic family. Mestrovic also owned real estate at the time of her death. 1st Source Bank, as the personal representative of the Mestrovic estate, entered into a contract to sell this real estate to the Wilkins. After taking possession of the property, the Wilkins complained to the bank that the property was left in a cluttered condition and would require substantial cleaning efforts.

The trust officer of the bank offered the Wilkins two options: Either the bank would get a rubbish removal service to clean the property or the Wilkins could clean the property and keep any items of personal property they wanted. The Wilkins opted to clean the property themselves. At the time these arrangements were made, neither the bank nor the Wilkins suspected that any works of art remained on the property. During the cleanup efforts, the Wilkins found eight drawings apparently created by Mestrovic's husband. They also found a plaster sculpture of the figure of Christ with three small children. The Wilkins claimed ownership of these works of art by virtue of their agreement with the bank. The bank claimed that there was no agreement for the sale of the artwork and that there had been mutual mistake. Is the bank correct?