Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,600+ case briefs...

Faggionato v. Lerner

United District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 F. Supp. 2d 237 (2007)


Facts

Anne Faggionato (plaintiff) was a United Kingdom citizen. Randolph Lerner (defendant) was a United States citizen. Lerner wanted to buy a Claude Monet painting. Faggionato was an art dealer and, at Lerner’s request, located a Monet painting in France that the owners were willing to sell. Lerner traveled to France to view the painting and discuss its sale with Faggionato. Lerner stated his intention to buy the painting but requested further documentation, including a bill of sale and the identity of the owners. Faggionato stated that the owners’ identity would be revealed “in due course,” but Faggionato never revealed the owners. Lerner decided not to buy the painting due to his transparency concerns. Faggionato sued Lerner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking $13 million, the agreed-upon sale price. Lerner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Faggionato did not have standing to bring the claim. Applying its choice of law rules, the district court determined that French law applied to Faggionato’s claim because most of the significant events regarding the contract took place in France. Both parties submitted expert testimony on French law regarding the formation of contracts. Lerner’s expert witness, Professor Christian Larroumet, opined that under French law, a contract of agency was not formed, because Faggionato did not prove that the owners of the painting granted her agency powers, and because the identities of the owners were unknown. Further, Larroumet opined that under French law a third party directed to enter into a contract (a “declaration de demand”) on behalf of someone does not have standing to sue on the contract. Faggionato’s expert witness did not dispute Larroumet’s legal analysis.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Preska, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 458,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 458,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial