Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Jafari v. Wally Findlay Galleries

741 F. Supp. 64 (1990)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...

Jafari v. Wally Findlay Galleries

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

741 F. Supp. 64 (1990)

Facts

Nercy Jafari (plaintiff) entered into negotiations with Dennis DiLorenzo (defendant) to buy a Salvador Dali painting from its owner. On January 26, 1988, with Jafari present, DiLorenzo wrote the parties’ agreed purchase terms on DiLorenzo’s letterhead stationary, including a purchase price of $210,000. The January memorandum did not specify the payment and delivery dates, but both parties knew that DiLorenzo had a deadline to sell the painting on behalf of its owner. The memorandum did not address, and DiLorenzo did not provide, the painting’s original certificate of authenticity. Despite having an expert confirm the authenticity of the painting, Jafari demanded that DiLorenzo furnish the painting’s original certificate of authenticity. DiLorenzo was willing to accept a certified check or deposit from Jafari and received extensions for the sale from the painting’s owner, but Jafari continued to insist upon obtaining additional expert opinions as to the painting’s authenticity. On March 25, 1988, DiLorenzo sold the painting to a third party. Jafari purchased the painting at an auction for $330,000. Jafari sued DiLorenzo for breach of contract, arguing that the January memorandum constituted a contract and that DiLorenzo breached the contract when he sold the painting to a third party. DiLorenzo moved for summary judgment, arguing that no contract was formed and that, even if a contract had been formed, Jafari breached the contract by failing to pay for the painting within a reasonable time.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Sweet, 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 540,000 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
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 26,900 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership