Peter B. Sundlun v. Bruce G. Shoemaker

Bruce Shoemaker (defendant) was an antiques dealer. Peter Sundlun (plaintiff) was an antiques broker. Sundlun was interested in purchasing a rare antique clock from Shoemaker. Shoemaker represented to Sundlun that the clock’s feet were original. Sundlun and Shoemaker entered into a written agreement in which Shoemaker represented and warranted the authenticity of the clock through the description in an attached horologist’s report. Shoemaker personally guaranteed the clock’s authenticity and represented he would purchase it back if it was determined the clock was not “as described.” After the sale, Sundlun discovered that the clock’s feet were not original and asked Shoemaker to buy back the clock in accordance with the agreement. Shoemaker refused, arguing that the written agreement warranted that the clock was as described in the horologist’s report and that Shoemaker’s representations about the feet were not warranted by the agreement. Sundlun sold the clock for $75,500 less than what he had paid Shoemaker. Sundlun sued Shoemaker for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The jury found for Sundlun. On appeal, Shoemaker argued that the court erred in admitting parol evidence consisting of Shoemaker’s oral representations about the clock’s feet. Shoemaker maintained that the term “as described” referred to the description in the horologist’s report.