## Facts

- Prince Felix Youssoupoff and Joseph E. Widener executed a written contract in London on August 12, 1921, concerning two Rembrandt portraits.
- The contract stated the prince “sold and delivered” the portraits to Widener for £100,000, that Widener paid in full, and that title passed to Widener.
- Widener granted the prince an option to repurchase the portraits on or before January 1, 1924, at the original price plus 8% interest, with repurchase to occur in Philadelphia and redelivery upon payment.
- The contract made the repurchase privilege “purely personal,” expressly “not assignable,” and not benefiting the prince’s heirs, assigns, or representatives; it was represented as exercisable only if the prince could “keep and personally enjoy” the paintings.
- The contract also reserved to Widener a right, for ten years after any repurchase, to take back the paintings if the prince or his representatives sought to dispose of them, enforceable against later possessors.
- In 1923, the prince attempted to exercise the option using borrowed funds structured so the paintings would serve as security for the lender.
- Widener refused the tender, asserting the financing arrangement violated the option’s strictly personal and nonassignable condition.
- The prince sued in New York seeking specific performance compelling Widener to accept payment and transfer the paintings; the complaint was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

## Issues

1. Which law governed construction and enforcement of the repurchase option: English law (place of contracting and original delivery) or Pennsylvania law (location of the paintings and place designated for repurchase)?
2. Under the governing law and contract terms, did an attempt to repurchase using lender financing secured by the paintings satisfy a “purely personal,” nonassignable repurchase privilege intended for the prince’s personal ownership and enjoyment?

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held that English law governed the contract and the repurchase option.
- The court held that the prince’s proposed repurchase arrangement failed to comply with the option’s personal and nonassignable limitations.
- Widener was not required to accept the tender or return the paintings.

## Legal Principles

- For a contract involving movable property made abroad, the law of the place where the parties’ contractual obligations were fixed and understood to be formed may govern, even if the property is later located elsewhere and performance is to occur in another jurisdiction.
- An option expressly characterized as “purely personal” and “not assignable” is construed strictly according to its terms.
- An attempted exercise of a personal, nonassignable option may be ineffective when structured to give a third-party financier an immediate security interest in the subject matter, treating the option as a transferable economic asset rather than a personal privilege.
- Specific performance is unavailable when the option holder does not satisfy the conditions precedent set by the parties’ express agreement.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the repurchase option as written, applying English law and holding that the prince’s collateralized financing plan was inconsistent with a strictly personal, nonassignable privilege; therefore, specific performance was denied and Widener retained title to the paintings.


Youssoupoff v. Widener, 246 N.Y. 174, 158 N.E. 64 (N.Y. 1927)