Plaintiffs bought paintings at public auctions conducted by defendant in 1962 and 1964. At that time, the applicable statutory and decisional law did not recognize the seller's expressed opinion or judgment as creating an implied warranty that a painting was authentic as the work of the named artist. The auction-sale catalogue listed, described, and illustrated the paintings, but its prefatory terms of sale prominently and clearly disclaimed any express or implied warranty or representation of genuineness. Nothing in the circumstances suggested any willful intent by defendant to deceive purchasers.
Issue
Whether buyers at a public auction could recover on the theory that the auction house warranted the authenticity of authorship of paintings, despite a clear catalogue disclaimer and despite then-existing law not recognizing an implied warranty based on the seller's opinion or judgment.
Rule
For public auction purchases made under the law then applicable, the seller's expressed opinion or judgment about authorship does not give rise to an implied warranty of authenticity. When the auction catalogue clearly and unequivocally disclaims any express or implied warranty or representation of genuineness, and no willful intent to deceive is shown, the purchasers assume the risk that their attribution of the paintings may be mistaken.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In 1964, Nora Feld purchased a landscape at a public auction in Chicago run by Lakeshore Estate Auctions. The catalogue identified the work as by Emil Varga, but the prefatory terms of sale, printed prominently at the front, stated that the auctioneer made no express or implied warranty or representation of genuineness; there is no evidence anyone at the auction house meant to mislead bidders. Two years later, experts conclude the painting is not by Varga.
Under the majority rule, is Nora most likely entitled to recover from the auction house on an implied warranty theory?
Explanation. The majority held that, under the law applicable to such auction purchases at that time, the seller's expressed opinion or judgment about authorship did not give rise to an implied warranty of authenticity. Where the catalogue prominently and unequivocally disclaimed any express or implied warranty or representation of genuineness, and no willful intent to deceive was shown, the buyer assumed the risk that the attribution might be mistaken. (Derived from Weisz v. Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. (n.d.).)