Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Art Law Decision by Judge Kaplan in the Southern District
You can read it here. Plaintiff bought 18 paintings from defendant for $9.5 million, then sued "essentially on the theories that [defendant] misrepresented the 'fair market value' of the paintings and that four of them ... were not authentic." A mixed result on the motion to dismiss -- the breach of warranty of authenticity survived, but Judge Kaplan didn't think much of the misrepresentation-of-value claims: "Insofar as [this] claim rests on the assertion that the seller warranted that the paintings were sold at fair market value when, in fact, they were sold at prices higher than fair market value, the claim is without merit. As noted previously, there is no objective, discernable fair market value except perhaps for fungible assets traded on an efficient market."