## Facts

- A seller sold a buyer four paintings described in a bill of parcels as: “Four pictures, Views in Venice, Canaletto, 1601.”
- The buyer sued in assumpsit for breach of warranty, alleging the seller promised the paintings were by the artist Canaletto.
- The buyer alleged the paintings were not painted by Canaletto and were therefore substantially less valuable.
- At trial, the bill of parcels was admitted as evidence of the terms of sale.
- The trial judge instructed the jury to decide whether the seller had contracted that the paintings were by Canaletto (a warranty) or whether the name was used only as description or opinion.
- The jury found for the buyer and expressly found that the bill of parcels amounted to a warranty.
- The seller sought to set aside the verdict, arguing the bill of parcels could not constitute a warranty as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the description “Canaletto” in a bill of parcels could be treated as an express warranty that the paintings were by that artist, rather than mere description or opinion.
2. Whether the trial court properly left the warranty-versus-description question to the jury and whether the jury’s verdict should be disturbed.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench upheld the plaintiff’s verdict.
- The court held it was proper to submit to the jury whether, considering the bill of parcels and surrounding circumstances, the seller contracted that the paintings were by the named artist.
- Because the jury found the bill of parcels amounted to a warranty, and no legal error justified reversal, the verdict was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Language in a bill of parcels or sales document that identifies a specific maker or artist can constitute an express warranty of identity/authenticity.
- Whether a seller’s identification of an artist is a binding warranty or merely descriptive language or opinion is generally a question of fact for the jury based on the whole transaction.
- Appellate review will not overturn a jury finding of warranty where the issue was properly submitted and the verdict is legally supportable.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a jury’s finding that a bill of parcels describing paintings by a named artist could amount to a warranty of authenticity, and confirmed that the warranty characterization ordinarily turns on a fact question for the jury rather than a categorical rule of law.


Power v. Barham, 111 Eng. Rep. 865 (K.B. 1836)