Cristallina S. A. v. Christie, Manson & Woods International, Inc.
117 A.D.2d 284, 502 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52775 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An auction house, acting as an agent for a consignor, has a fiduciary duty to act in the utmost good faith and in the interest of its principal. A breach of this duty can occur through failure to disclose material information, misrepresentation of value, or failing to exercise the special skill and care commensurate with its expertise.
Facts:
- In January 1981, Cristallina S.A. contacted Christie, Manson and Woods International, Inc. (Christie's) to sell several Impressionist paintings to raise $10 million.
- Christie's president, David Bathurst, appraised the paintings and convinced Cristallina's representative, Dimitry Jodidio, to proceed with a public auction by focusing on high auction estimates of up to $12.6 million.
- Cristallina consigned eight paintings to Christie's for a sale scheduled on May 19, 1981.
- After the paintings arrived in New York, another Christie's expert, Christopher Burge, informed Bathurst that many of the paintings were 'difficult' to sell and that Bathurst's estimate for one painting was 'unobtainable'. This information was not conveyed to Cristallina.
- In early May 1981, Christie's released public presale estimates for the paintings that were substantially lower than the figures Bathurst had provided to Jodidio.
- On May 12, 1981, Christie's informed the media that it expected the paintings to sell for between $5 million and $9 million.
- On May 18, 1981, Bathurst met with Jodidio and recommended reserves totaling $9.25 million, which Jodidio agreed to, without disclosing the lower public estimates or the negative internal assessments.
- Just before the auction, Bathurst unilaterally increased the reserves on two paintings by a total of $150,000. At the auction, seven of the eight paintings failed to sell.
Procedural Posture:
- Cristallina S.A. filed a lawsuit against Christie's and David Bathurst in the Supreme Court, New York County, which is a trial-level court.
- After the case was placed on the trial calendar, the defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court (referred to as Special Term) granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Cristallina's causes of action.
- Cristallina, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.
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 an auction house, as a consignor's agent, potentially breach its fiduciary duty, commit misrepresentation, or act negligently by failing to disclose internal expert disagreement about the auction appeal of consigned items, providing the public with presale estimates lower than agreed-upon reserves, and setting reserves that violate its own stated policies?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes, an auction house may breach its duties under such circumstances. As an agent, an auction house has a fiduciary duty to disclose all relevant information that a principal would desire to have, such as significant internal disagreements about the auction appeal of consigned items. Withholding such information could prevent the principal from making an informed decision, such as withdrawing the items from sale. Furthermore, providing public estimates that are substantially lower than the reserves, in violation of the auction house's own policies, and failing to disclose this discrepancy to the principal, raises a factual question as to whether the agent acted in good faith and with the requisite standard of care. Statements of value, while often opinions, can be actionable as misrepresentation if the expert knows them to be false or makes them without a reasonable basis, thereby improperly inducing the principal's reliance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high standard of care imposed on auction houses as expert agents with fiduciary responsibilities. It clarifies that an auction house's duty of disclosure extends to internal expert disagreements that materially affect the principal's interests. The case is significant for establishing that an expert's opinion on value can be legally actionable as misrepresentation if not rendered truthfully, blurring the traditional line between non-actionable opinion and actionable fact. This precedent holds specialized agents accountable not just for their actions but also for the candor and basis of their expert advice, impacting how they must communicate with clients about risks and valuations.
