Eytan v. Bach
374 A.2d 879 (1977)
Rule of Law:
A seller does not have a duty to disclose that an item is a reproduction when the purchase price is sufficiently low to put a reasonable buyer on notice that they are not purchasing a genuine original, especially when the buyer makes no inquiry as to the item's authenticity.
Facts:
- A married couple went to a Georgetown antique and secondhand furniture shop to purchase antique paintings.
- They inspected several canvases, observing characteristics they believed indicated age, such as brittleness, cracked paint, discoloration, and grease stains.
- The couple selected and purchased three paintings for a total price of $157.50, averaging approximately $50 each.
- The vendor made no express statement that the paintings were originals or antiques.
- Regarding one painting, the vendor remarked that paintings featuring black men were unusual in the 19th Century.
- The couple later discovered the paintings were not genuine antiques but were recent reproductions artificially aged.
Procedural Posture:
- A married couple filed an action in the Small Claims Court against a Georgetown retailer to recover the $157.50 purchase price of three paintings.
- During a conciliation proceeding, the trial judge attempted to facilitate a settlement, which the couple rejected.
- After the conciliation failed and the court heard the principal appellant's opening statement of facts, the trial judge summarily dismissed the complaint, entering judgment for the retailer.
- The purchasers filed an application for allowance of appeal to the appellate court, which was granted.
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 seller have a legal duty to disclose that paintings are reproductions, rather than valuable originals, when the low purchase price should put the buyer on notice of their true nature and the buyer does not inquire about their authenticity?
Opinions:
Majority - Reilly, Chief Judge, Retired
No, a seller does not have a legal duty to disclose that paintings are reproductions under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the low average price of approximately $50 per painting was a sufficiently small amount to put any reasonable purchaser on notice that they were not buying a legitimate antique original work of art. Because the purchasers did not inquire as to whether the canvases were originals, the court perceived no duty on the part of the vendor to inform them of the obvious. The court drew an analogy to a customer buying a $50 item that looks like a diamond pendant, stating it would not be incumbent upon the seller to warn the customer that it is costume jewelry. While acknowledging that concealment of a material fact can be fraudulent, the court found that principle inapplicable here, as the circumstances negated any credible claim of fraud.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle of caveat emptor ('let the buyer beware') in consumer transactions where the price itself serves as a strong indicator of the product's quality and authenticity. It limits a seller's duty of disclosure by establishing that this duty does not extend to revealing 'obvious' facts that a reasonable consumer should infer from the context of the sale, particularly the price. The ruling suggests that courts are unlikely to find fraud or breach of warranty where a buyer, hoping for an extraordinary bargain, fails to conduct due diligence by asking pertinent questions. The case thus places a burden on buyers to make specific inquiries if they have specific expectations about an item's value or authenticity, especially when a price seems 'too good to be true.'
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Eytan v. Bach (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"