## Facts

- A seller offered paintings for sale using a printed catalogue listing each picture with an attributed artist’s name.
- A buyer purchased two paintings and paid the price on the shared assumption that they were originals by the named Old Masters.
- The paintings were later determined to be copies, not originals by the attributed artists.
- The buyer sought to rescind the sale and recover the price, claiming the catalogue attribution amounted to a warranty of authenticity.
- The seller refused rescission, asserting the catalogue attribution was descriptive opinion rather than a guaranteed statement of fact.

## Issues

1. Whether a sale catalogue’s attribution of a painting to a particular Old Master constitutes an express warranty of authenticity.
2. Whether, if the attribution proves false, the buyer may rescind and recover the purchase price on a warranty or misdescription theory.

## Decision

- The court found for the seller.
- The court held that the catalogue attribution did not amount to a warranty of authenticity.
- Because the attribution was treated as opinion in this context, the buyer could not recover the purchase price on a breach-of-warranty theory.

## Legal Principles

- Attributing an artwork to an Old Master in a sale catalogue may be treated as opinion rather than an express warranty, particularly where authorship cannot be reliably verified due to the age and provenance limits of such works.
- A statement becomes a warranty only if it is a definite contractual undertaking of fact, shown by clear language or circumstances indicating an intent to guarantee authenticity.
- Absent proof of deceit or a clear promise of authenticity, a good-faith but mistaken attribution does not, by itself, give the buyer a price-recovery remedy framed as breach of warranty.

## Conclusion

The court denied the buyer recovery because the catalogue’s Old Master attribution was not construed as a contractual warranty of authenticity but as a nonbinding opinion in an area where certainty of authorship is often unattainable.


Jendwine v. Slade, 170 Eng. Rep. 459 (K.B. Nisi Prius 1797)