From our private database of 28,500+ case briefs...
Cristallina S.A. v. Christie, Manson & Woods International, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
502 N.Y.S.2d 165 (1986)
Cristallina S.A. (plaintiff), an art dealer, sought to raise money by selling some of its paintings. Cristallina contacted an auction house, Christie, Manson & Woods International, Inc. (Christie) (defendant) to discuss the sale of several Impressionist paintings. Dimitry Jodidio, Cristallina’s representative, met with David Bathurst, an expert on Impressionist art and Christie’s president. Bathurst recommended that Cristallina sell eight paintings at public auction. Bathurst estimated that sales would generate between $8.5 million and $12.6 million. Jodidio agreed to auction the paintings. After consigning the eight paintings for auction to Christie, Jodidio and Bathurst still needed to agree to reserve (i.e., minimum) prices for the paintings. Christopher Burge, head of Christie’s Impressionist department, originally had concurred with Bathurst’s estimates for the paintings, but he determined that the paintings would be difficult to sell at auction and that some of Bathurst’s estimates were unobtainable. No one informed Jodidio of Burge’s expert opinion. As the auction approached, Christie’s public-relations officer, acting on information from Burge, issued a statement that Christie expected the paintings to sell for between $5 million and $9 million. Christie had a policy of not setting the auction reserves above the high-value estimates. Despite this, Bathurst ultimately recommended a reserve of $9.25 million, to which Jodidio agreed. However, Bathurst failed to inform Jodidio about the lower expected range released by Christie’s public-relations officer or that rumors as to the authenticity of the paintings had hurt the paintings’ values. Only one painting sold at the auction. Cristallina sued Christie for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, for failure to bring material information to its attention and recommending high reserves despite its policy of setting reserve prices below high estimates. Christie filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted. Cristallina appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.