Porter, the owner of an art collection, engaged in a number of art transactions with Harold Von Maker, who used, among other names, that of Peter Wertz. Porter permitted Von Maker to have temporarily a painting by Maurice Utrillo, Chateau de Lion-sur-Mer, and to hang it in his home until he decided whether to purchase it. A few months later, Porter sought the return of the Utrillo painting but was unable to reach Von Maker. Porter subsequently discovered that he was not dealing with the “real” Peter Wertz but with Harold Von Maker, a man with an extensive criminal record, including a conviction for defrauding the Chase Manhattan Bank. When Porter finally reached him, Von Maker claimed that the Utrillo was on consignment with a client. Von Maker then agreed in writing either to return the painting to Porter within ninety days or to make compensation for it. At the time he entered this agreement, Von Maker had already sold the painting. He had used the real Peter Wertz, a delicatessen employee and acquaintance, to effect the sale of the Utrillo to Feigen for $20,000. Feigen, an art dealer, then sold the painting to Brenner, and it is now somewhere in Venezuela Can Porter recover possession of either the Utrillo or its value? Explain.