Weisz v. Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc.
325 N.Y.S.2d 576, 67 Misc. 2d 1077, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 292 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A disclaimer of warranty in an auction catalogue is ineffective to shield an expert seller from liability for a misrepresentation of authorship when the seller's expertise and the catalogue's overall presentation are intended to induce reliance, and the disclaimer is not sufficiently prominent or clear to overcome the express warranty created by the attribution.
Facts:
- On May 16, 1962, Dr. Arthur Weisz attended an auction by Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. and purchased a painting.
- Two years later, on May 13, 1964, David and Irene Schwartz purchased another painting at a Parke-Bernet auction.
- For both sales, the Parke-Bernet auction catalogue listed the paintings as the work of artist Raoul Dufy, and the buyers relied on this attribution.
- Each catalogue contained a 'Conditions of Sale' section with a paragraph disclaiming any warranty for the correctness of description, genuineness, or authorship.
- Several years after the auctions, the plaintiffs were informed by the New York County District Attorney’s office that the paintings were forgeries.
- The plaintiffs demanded a return of their purchase prices, but Parke-Bernet denied responsibility, citing the disclaimer of warranty.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Arthur Weisz and David and Irene Schwartz (plaintiffs) initiated separate lawsuits against Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. and its employee, Carroll Hogan (defendants).
- The actions were commenced in the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County, a trial court.
- The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly before a judge, as the parties had waived their right to a jury.
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 disclaimer of warranty for genuineness, contained within the 'Conditions of Sale' section of an auction catalogue, relieve an expert auction house from liability for breach of an express warranty of authorship created by its prominent and unqualified attributions?
Opinions:
Majority - Sandler, J.
No, a disclaimer of warranty for genuineness does not relieve an expert auction house from liability under these circumstances. For plaintiff Weisz, the disclaimer is inapplicable because he did not know of its existence and, as a non-professional art buyer, could not reasonably be expected to know that a catalogue dedicated to art descriptions would contain binding contractual terms in its preliminary pages. For the Schwartz plaintiffs, who were aware of the conditions, the disclaimer is nonetheless ineffective. Parke-Bernet, as a renowned expert, intended for bidders to rely on its attributions of authorship, and the entire presentation of the catalogue was designed to inspire confidence in the works' genuineness. Given the gross inequality of knowledge and the seller's intent to induce reliance, a technical, inconspicuous disclaimer is insufficient to negate the express warranty created by the direct attribution of authorship and is inconsistent with the principles of fair dealing.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the judicial tendency to invalidate disclaimers of warranty in consumer transactions marked by a significant disparity in knowledge and expertise between the parties. The court prioritized the seller's affirmative representations and the buyer's reasonable reliance over boilerplate contractual language, especially when the disclaimer was not prominent. This case sets a precedent that expert sellers cannot create an aura of reliability and expertise to induce a sale and then use inconspicuous fine print to disclaim responsibility for the very basis of that sale, reinforcing principles of fairness in contracts.
