Menzel v. List
246 N.E.2d 742 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The proper measure of damages for a breach of an implied warranty of title for personal property is the value of the property at the time the buyer is dispossessed, not the original purchase price.
Facts:
- In 1932, Erna Menzel and her husband purchased a Marc Chagall painting in Brussels.
- In 1940, the Menzels fled Belgium during the German invasion, and the painting was taken from their apartment by German authorities.
- In 1955, Klaus and his wife (the Peris), owners of a New York art gallery, purchased the Chagall painting from a Parisian gallery for $2,800 without inquiring into its history.
- In October 1955, the Peris sold the painting to Albert List for $4,000.
- In 1962, Erna Menzel discovered the painting was in List's possession after seeing it reproduced in an art book.
- Menzel demanded the painting's return from List, but he refused to surrender it.
Procedural Posture:
- Erna Menzel initiated a replevin action in the trial court against Albert List to recover the painting.
- List filed a third-party complaint against the Peris, the sellers, for breach of an implied warranty of title.
- The trial court jury returned a verdict for Menzel, ordering List to return the painting or pay its present value of $22,500.
- The jury also found for List against the Peris on the third-party complaint, awarding List $22,500.
- The Peris appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reducing the damages awarded to List to his purchase price of $4,000 plus interest.
- List, as appellant, appealed the modification to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest 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:
In an action for breach of an implied warranty of title, is the buyer's measure of damages the value of the property at the time of dispossession?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
Yes. The proper measure of damages for a breach of warranty of title is the value of the property at the time of dispossession, which compensates the buyer for the loss of their bargain. The court reasoned that contract damages should put the injured party in the same position they would have been in had the contract been fulfilled. Limiting damages to the purchase price plus interest, as in real property cases, would merely return the buyer to the status quo ante, failing to compensate them for the appreciated value of the property they lost. This benefit-of-the-bargain approach aligns with the New York Personal Property Law, which defines damages as 'the loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.' The seller, as a merchant, is in a better position to investigate title and can protect themselves by doing so or by explicitly disclaiming the warranty.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear rule in New York for calculating damages in cases involving a breach of warranty of title for personal property, particularly for goods that may appreciate significantly, like art. It aligns the remedy with the standard 'benefit of the bargain' principle of contract law, ensuring the innocent buyer is made whole for their actual loss. The ruling places a significant burden on sellers, especially professional dealers, to verify provenance and title, as they are now liable for the appreciated value of the goods, not just the original sale price. This precedent incentivizes sellers to conduct due diligence or expressly disclaim warranties to mitigate potentially substantial financial risk.
Unlock the full brief for Menzel v. List