Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 17,300+ case briefs...

Menzel v. List

Court of Appeals of New York
267 N.Y.S.2d 804 (1966), 24 N.Y.2d 91, 246 N.E.2d 742 (1969)


Erna Menzel (plaintiff) and her husband fled their home in 1940 when the Germans invaded Belgium. The Menzels left behind a painting by Marc Chagall, which was removed by German authorities. In 1955, the painting was sold by a Parisian art gallery to Klaus Perls and his wife (defendants), who did not inquire about the painting’s title. The Perlses sold the painting to Albert List (defendant) later in 1955 for $4,000. Menzel discovered the painting’s location in 1962 and demanded that List return the painting to Menzel. When List refused, Menzel brought a replevin action against him. List impleaded the Perlses, alleging that they were liable to him for a breach of implied warranty of title. The jury returned a verdict in Menzel’s favor, and the lower court ordered that the painting be returned to Menzel. The jury also returned a verdict for List against the Perlses in the amount of $22,500, which the jury determined to be the painting’s present value. The Perlses appealed, and the appellate division reduced the amount awarded to List to $4,000, the amount that List had paid the Perlses for the painting. List appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Burke, 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 457,000 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 457,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 17,300 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

If List's recovery were limited to the purchase price ($4,000) would that be considered restitution or reliance damages?

Do you view the $4000 purchase price as restitution damages because it sets the Perlses back to what they had before they sold the painting (thereby preventing their unjust enrichment)? Or do you view it as reliance damages, because List relied on the implied warranty of title when he bought the painting? Thanks!

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod.