Rogath v. Siebenmann

129 F.3d 261 (2nd Cir. 1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In July 1993, D sold a painting to P for $ 570,000. In the Bill of Sale, D described the provenance of the Painting and warranted that he was the sole owner of the Painting, that it was authentic, and that he was not aware of any challenge to its authenticity. P sold the Painting to Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc., in New York, for $950,000. Acquavella learned of a challenge to the Painting's authenticity and, on November 1, 1993, requested that P refund the $950,000 and take back the Painting. Rogath did so and then sued D for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud. P moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of warranty claims, and the district court granted his motion. The court found that D was unsure of the provenance of the Painting when he sold it, he was not the sole owner of the Painting, and he already knew of a challenge to the Painting's authenticity by the Marlborough Fine Art Gallery in London. The court awarded P $950,000 in damages. The court dismissed the remaining claims for fraud and breach of contract 'in light of the full recovery on the warranties granted herein.' D appeals the grant of partial summary judgment. P cross-appeals the denial of his motion for attachment and the dismissal of his fraud and breach of contract claims.