Greenberg Gallery, Inc. v. Bauman
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4067, 1993 WL 99263, 817 F. Supp. 167 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a civil action for breach of warranty or mutual mistake concerning the authenticity of a work of art, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the work is not authentic. This burden may not be met if the defendant presents strong evidence of authenticity, such as an impeccable provenance, and the plaintiff's expert testimony is based on a flawed methodology or unsupported assumptions.
Facts:
- In 1959, Alexander Calder created a black hanging mobile titled 'Rio Nero'.
- In 1967, Peris Galleries sold the Rio Nero to Lionel Bauman, Patricia Bauman's father.
- Upon Lionel Bauman's death in 1987, Patricia Bauman inherited the mobile.
- In early 1990, using a transparency of the mobile, Peris Galleries confirmed its identity for Patricia Bauman as the Rio Nero and provided the original 1967 invoice.
- In March 1990, a group of art dealers (plaintiffs), led by Ronald Greenberg, purchased the mobile from Patricia Bauman through Entwistle Gallery for $500,000.
- After the purchase, plaintiffs exhibited the mobile, noticed problems with its balance and movement, and made several attempts to reassemble and reconfigure its parts.
- In November 1990, after comparing the mobile to an archival photograph provided by Peris Galleries, the plaintiffs concluded the mobile was a forgery.
- An expert for the plaintiffs, Klaus Peris, opined it was a copy, while an expert for the defendants, Linda Silverman, opined it was an authentic but damaged Calder.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of art dealers (plaintiffs) filed a diversity action against L & R Entwistle and Co. Ltd. and Patricia Bauman (defendants) in the U.S. District Court.
- The complaint alleged fraud, breach of express warranty, and mutual mistake of fact.
- The parties waived their right to a jury trial, proceeding with a bench trial before a judge.
- At the end of the plaintiffs' case, the court dismissed the fraud claim for failure to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard.
- The trial continued on the remaining claims of breach of warranty and mutual mistake of fact.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mobile they purchased was not the authentic Alexander Calder work entitled 'Rio Nero'?
Opinions:
Majority - Oberdorfer, District Judge
No. The plaintiffs failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mobile is not the authentic Calder 'Rio Nero'. The court found the evidence of authenticity, including the mobile's impeccable provenance and the authentication of its signature, more persuasive than the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The plaintiffs' expert, Klaus Peris, based his conclusion on a cursory, mechanical comparison of the three-dimensional mobile to a two-dimensional archival photograph, a method the court found unreliable. Peris's testimony was also internally inconsistent, and he failed to address the authenticity of the 'AC' signature. In contrast, the defendants' expert conducted a more thorough physical examination, and the court gave significant weight to the mobile's flawless chain of ownership and the lack of evidence of Calder forgeries in the art market. The court concluded it was more likely than not that the mobile was the authentic Rio Nero and that any defects were the result of damage or misassembly by the plaintiffs after the sale.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of how courts resolve a 'battle of the experts' in a specialized field like art authentication. It underscores that the credibility of an expert's opinion depends not just on their credentials but on the soundness of their methodology. The decision emphasizes the profound legal and commercial importance of a work's 'provenance' (its chain of custody), establishing it as powerful evidence of authenticity that is difficult to overcome. The ruling also highlights that a plaintiff cannot shift the burden of proof; they must affirmatively prove their claim, and failure to do so, especially in the face of strong circumstantial evidence, will result in a judgment for the defendant.
