## Facts

- Karen Bentley (Indiana) responded to Charles Slavik’s notice offering for sale an “Auguste Sebastien Philippe Bernardel violin made in 1835” with an appraised value of $15,000–$20,000.
- Slavik repeated by telephone that the violin was an authentic 1835 Bernardel and invited Bentley to inspect it at his home in Edwardsville, Illinois.
- Bentley visited the Slaviks’ home, inspected and played the violin for at least two hours, and again was told it was an authentic 1835 Bernardel.
- Slavik showed Bentley an appraiser’s certificate stating the violin was an authentic Bernardel valued at $15,000–$20,000.
- Bentley purchased the violin for $17,500, paying $15,000 immediately and later mailing the remaining $2,500 from Indiana; the bill of sale described “One Bernardel A.S.P. Violin.”
- About a year later Bentley learned the violin might not be authentic, demanded rescission and return of her money, and was refused.
- Bentley obtained expert opinion that the violin was not a genuine Bernardel and was worth about $2,000.
- Bentley sued Charles and Rosemary Slavik in federal court under diversity jurisdiction; the case was tried to the court.

## Issues

1. Whether Rosemary Slavik was liable for the sale based on her marital relationship to the seller and presence in the household.
2. Whether Bentley could recover under Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice statutes based on the alleged misdescription.
3. Whether the seller’s statements, bill of sale, and certificate created an express warranty that the violin was an authentic 1835 Bernardel of the represented value, and whether that warranty was breached.
4. Whether mutual mistake as to the violin’s maker and value entitled Bentley to restitution.

## Decision

- Illinois law governed the dispute under the court’s contract choice-of-law approach.
- Judgment entered for Rosemary Slavik because she had no ownership interest in the violin and did not participate in the sale.
- Bentley’s claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act were denied because the sale was not shown to be in the course of the seller’s business or trade, and the statutory requirements were not met.
- Bentley’s claims under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act were denied because she did not seek injunctive relief and did not prove willful deception.
- The court found an express warranty was created by the description “Bernardel,” the seller’s repeated affirmations, and the authentication certificate, and that the warranty was breached because the violin was not a Bernardel and did not have the represented value.
- The court also found a mutual mistake about the maker and value, and awarded Bentley restitution equal to the purchase price minus the violin’s actual value (approximately $17,500 less about $2,000).

## Legal Principles

- A spouse is not liable for the other spouse’s contract absent proof of ownership interest in the goods or participation in the transaction.
- Illinois consumer fraud protections generally require conduct in trade or commerce; a one-time private sale by a non-merchant seller does not, without more, satisfy that statutory predicate.
- The Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act primarily provides injunctive relief and requires proof of willful deceptive conduct for the relief sought.
- Under U.C.C. § 2-313(1)(b) (as adopted in Illinois), a description of goods that forms part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods will conform to that description; repeated assertions and an authentication certificate can constitute warranty-creating affirmations.
- When both parties share a mistake about a basic assumption of the contract (such as identity and value of the item), restitution may be awarded to return the buyer’s overpayment measured against actual value.

## Conclusion

The court rejected statutory consumer-deception claims and found no liability for the seller’s spouse, but held that the seller’s descriptions and authentication certificate created an express warranty that was breached and that both parties were mutually mistaken about the violin’s maker and value, justifying restitution of the amount paid above the instrument’s actual worth.


Bentley v. Slavik, 663 F. Supp. 736 (S.D. Ill. 1987)