## Facts

- Dr. Arthur Weisz bought a painting at a Parke-Bernet auction for $3,347.50 after the auction catalogue identified it as a work by Raoul Dufy.
- David and Irene Schwartz bought another painting at a Parke-Bernet auction for $9,360, also catalogued as a work by Raoul Dufy.
- Years later, a district attorney investigation determined both paintings were forgeries with negligible commercial value.
- Plaintiffs demanded return of the purchase prices; Parke-Bernet refused, relying on catalogue Conditions of Sale disclaiming warranties as to “genuineness, authorship and the like.”
- The catalogue contained a technical, one-page disclaimer before extensive item listings that identified artists by name.
- The court found the Schwartzes were aware of the disclaimer; Dr. Weisz was not.
- Plaintiffs bought in reliance on the catalogue’s attribution and would not have purchased absent the belief the works were genuine Dufys.
- Parke-Bernet also believed the works were genuine at the time of sale.
- Carroll E. Hogan, a Parke-Bernet employee involved in the auctions, was also sued.

## Issues

1. Whether identifying the paintings in the auction catalogue as works by “Raoul Dufy” constituted an express warranty of authorship under former New York sales law.
2. Whether the catalogue’s Conditions of Sale effectively disclaimed any express warranty and barred recovery when the works proved to be forgeries.
3. Whether a Parke-Bernet employee could be held personally liable for the misattribution.

## Decision

- The catalogue’s attribution of the paintings to Raoul Dufy constituted an express warranty of authorship.
- The catalogue disclaimer did not negate that express warranty and did not bar plaintiffs’ recovery.
- The claims against Hogan were dismissed for lack of a factual basis for personal liability.
- Judgment was entered for plaintiffs against Parke-Bernet for the respective purchase prices, with interest and costs.

## Legal Principles

- A seller’s factual description of goods, including attribution of authorship, can create an express warranty when it forms part of the basis of the bargain under former New York sales law.
- A general, technical disclaimer in standard sale conditions is strictly construed and may be ineffective to negate a specific express warranty central to the transaction.
- Seller good faith or shared belief in authenticity does not defeat liability where the seller chose to warrant authorship by specific attribution.
- An employee is not personally liable for corporate sales obligations absent an independent basis to impose individual liability.

## Conclusion

An auction house that catalogues a work as by a specific artist makes an express warranty of authorship, and it cannot avoid responsibility for a forged work through a generalized catalogue disclaimer; absent separate wrongdoing, an employee involved in the sale is not personally liable.


Weisz v. Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc., 325 N.Y.S.2d 576 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1971)