Dawson v. G. Malina Inc.

In 1974, Joseph Dawson (plaintiff) purchased 11 pieces of Chinese art from G. Malina, Inc. (GMI) (defendant) for a total price of $105,400. Dawson, who lived in Jersey, Channel Islands, had seen some of the artworks in person on a trip to New York; the remaining artworks were recommended to him by Gerald Malina, the art merchant operating GMI, in subsequent written correspondence. After purchase, Malina shipped the items to Dawson’s home and also sent Dawson written invoices and a bill of sale. The letters, invoices, and bill of sale identified the artworks as authentic pieces created during Chinese antiquity. Upon receipt of the artworks, Dawson showed one of the vases to a London-based art expert, who determined that it was unauthentic. Thereafter, Dawson had all the items he had purchased from GMI appraised. He then filed suit against GMI and Malina, seeking rescission, or, alternatively, damages for breach of warranty under § 219-c of the New York General Business Law, a statutory provision explicitly applicable to the fine-art market. Section 219-c stipulated that an art merchant who provided a buyer with a written description of a work that identified its authorship thereby made an express warranty of authenticity to the buyer. The case proceeded to a bench trial. During proceedings, experts on both sides testified that authenticating artworks from Chinese antiquity was notoriously difficult. Dawson, however, asserted that GMI and Molina had unambiguously affirmed the artworks’ authenticity, and he argued that because they could not stand behind those affirmations, the court should find a breach of warranty. In response, GMI and Malina conceded the existence of a warranty but argued that the statute should be construed to account for the art-world context, in which authenticity can be a shifting and elusive entity. On appeal, the court examined the proper standard for demonstrating a breach under § 219-c.