Dawson v. G. Malina, Inc.
1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13909, 463 F. Supp. 461 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An art merchant's express warranty regarding the authenticity of a work of fine art, made to a non-merchant buyer under New York law, is breached if the merchant's representations lacked a reasonable basis in fact at the time they were made.
Facts:
- In 1974, Joseph M. A. J. Dawson, a collector, purchased eleven objects of Chinese art for $105,400 from G. Malina, Inc. (GMI), a New York art gallery owned by Gerald Malina.
- Malina provided Dawson with written descriptions in letters, invoices, and a final bill of sale that attributed specific historical periods and provenance to the items, such as being from the 'Sung Dynasty' or the 'Chien Lung period'.
- After the purchase, Dawson showed a photograph of one vase, represented as a Sung Dynasty piece, to a London art dealer who expressed doubt about its authenticity.
- Dawson subsequently had the vase and several other purchased items appraised by various art experts in London and New York.
- The experts consulted by Dawson concluded that several of the objects were not from the historical periods to which Malina had attributed them.
- Dawson informed Malina of the experts' conclusions and requested a refund for certain items, but Malina, after consulting his own expert, refused to provide a refund for the most expensive piece, the large ceramic vase.
- Dawson also contended that Malina had orally agreed to pay for the costs of freight and insurance for the shipment of the art.
- When Dawson returned one non-disputed item for a $2,500 refund, Malina applied that money to shipping and insurance costs, which Malina claimed were Dawson's responsibility.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph M. A. J. Dawson (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against G. Malina, Inc. and Gerald Malina (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The lawsuit sought rescission of the sales contract or, alternatively, damages for breach of warranty and breach of an oral contract concerning shipping costs.
- Jurisdiction in the federal court was based on diversity of citizenship between the parties.
- The defendants asserted a counterclaim for defamation.
- At the start of the trial, defendants agreed to accept the return of four of the eleven items purchased, without conceding that their attributions were inaccurate.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial (trial before a judge without a jury) on the five remaining disputed art objects and the oral contract claim.
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 art merchant's unequivocal attribution of a work of art to a specific historical period constitute a breach of express warranty under New York General Business Law § 219-c if the attribution, while not definitively proven false, lacks a reasonable basis in fact at the time of the sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Bonsal, District Judge.
Yes. An art merchant's unqualified attribution constitutes a breach of express warranty if it lacks a reasonable basis in fact at the time of sale. The court acknowledged that art attribution is an 'inexact science' and that a strict standard requiring absolute certainty would be unjust. However, it also rejected a standard that would absolve dealers of liability unless their representations were definitively proven false. Instead, the court established an intermediate standard: whether the representations had a 'reasonable basis in fact' when made. The burden is on the plaintiff to show by a preponderance of the evidence that such a basis was lacking. Applying this standard, the court weighed the conflicting expert testimony for each disputed item. For three items, including a vase Malina claimed was from the Sung Dynasty, the court found the attributions lacked a reasonable basis because even the defendant's own experts expressed significant doubts or qualifications, and one item's provenance was demonstrably false. For two other items, the court found a reasonable basis existed because a consensus of experts, including the plaintiff's, found the attributions acceptable. Therefore, the warranties for the first three items were breached, but the warranties for the latter two were not.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the 'reasonable basis in fact' standard for breach of express warranty claims concerning art authenticity under New York's protective statute. It navigates the middle ground between the inherent subjectivity of art attribution and the need to protect non-expert consumers from unsubstantiated claims by professional dealers. The decision clarifies that an art merchant cannot simply claim their attribution is a mere opinion to avoid liability. This precedent requires dealers to have objective, supportable reasons for their attributions and provides a framework for courts to resolve such disputes by weighing the collective testimony of experts to gauge the reasonableness of the dealer's claims at the time of sale.
