Bentley v. Slavik
1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6205, 663 F.Supp. 736 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller's specific description of goods that forms part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods will conform to that description, even if the seller is not a merchant and made the representation without intent to deceive. Alternatively, a contract is voidable for mutual mistake when both parties are mistaken about a basic assumption that has a material effect on the agreed-upon exchange.
Facts:
- In January 1984, Charles Slavik advertised a violin for sale, representing it as an authentic Auguste Sebastien Philippe Bernardel violin made in 1835.
- After Karen Bentley responded to the ad, Slavik repeated this representation to her over the phone and at his home in Illinois.
- During Bentley's visit, Slavik showed her the violin and a certificate of authenticity from Robert Bernard Tipple, which estimated the violin's value at $15,000 to $20,000.
- Relying on Slavik's representations and the certificate, Bentley purchased the violin for $17,500 on January 28, 1984.
- The bill of sale signed by Slavik described the item as 'One Bernardel A.S.P. Violin.'
- In April 1985, Bentley learned the violin might not be authentic, and two expert appraisers later concluded it was not a Bernardel, valuing it at between $750 and $2,000.
- The court found that Slavik did not purposefully misrepresent the violin and was not in the business, occupation, or vocation of selling violins.
- During her ownership, Bentley played the violin extensively, and the instrument sustained damage and underwent major, poorly executed repairs.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Bentley, a citizen of Indiana, filed a lawsuit against Charles and Rosemary Slavik, citizens of Illinois, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Bentley's complaint alleged violations of Illinois consumer protection statutes, breach of contract for breach of express warranty, and was later amended to include a count for mutual mistake.
- The case was tried before the court without a jury (a bench trial).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-merchant seller's description of a violin as being an authentic work by a specific maker, made orally, in an advertisement, and on the bill of sale, create an express warranty that the violin is authentic under the Uniform Commercial Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Stiehl, District Judge
Yes, a non-merchant seller's description creates an express warranty. Under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code § 2-313(1)(b), any description of goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description. The court found that the 'basis of the bargain' test was met because Slavik’s repeated descriptions of the violin as a 'Bernardel'—in the advertisement, in conversation, on the certificate of authenticity, and in the bill of sale—formed the basic assumption of the transaction for both parties. Because the violin delivered was not a Bernardel, Slavik breached this express warranty. The court also found for Bentley on the alternative theory of mutual mistake, as both parties were mistaken about the violin's authenticity, a basic assumption that materially affected the price. The court rejected Bentley's claims under Illinois consumer fraud statutes because Slavik was not in the business of selling violins and did not act with fraudulent intent.
Analysis:
This case serves as a foundational example of how U.C.C. express warranty principles apply to transactions between non-merchants. It establishes that a seller's specific affirmations of fact about a product, not just 'puffery,' become binding warranties if they are part of the 'basis of the bargain,' regardless of the seller's intent or expertise. The decision reinforces that the focus is on the parties' underlying assumptions at the time of the sale. Furthermore, its alternative holding on mutual mistake demonstrates how contract law provides remedies when a fundamental error by both parties undermines the very essence of the agreement.
