Mark Murray and Ian Peck are art dealers who own separate art galleries located in New York. Robert and Jean Weil reside in Montgomery, Alabama, and are art collectors. Murray and Sam Lehr, a business acquaintance of his, traveled to Montgomery to see the various paintings in the Weils’ collection, including a painting by Edgar Degas titled Aux Courses, which Murray examined under ultraviolet light. Murray later telephoned Weil and told him that he had spoken with someone who might be interested in purchasing the Degas.
On November 3, 1997, the director of Murray’s gallery, Stephanie Calman, traveled to the Weils’ home in Alabama. Calman, on behalf of Murray, and Robert Weil executed an agreement that provided for consignment of the Degas to Murray’s gallery “for a private inspection in New York for a period of a week” from November 3, “to be extended only with the express permission of the consignor.” Calman returned to New York with the painting the same day.
Murray then showed the Degas to Peck. Peck expressed an interest in purchasing the Degas after seeing it, and the price of $1,125,000 was discussed.
On November 26, 1997, Murray signed an agreement drafted by Weil and retyped on Murray’s letterhead. Weil signed the agreement on December 1, 1997.
Neither Murray nor anyone else ever paid Weil the $1 million. Nonetheless, Murray maintained possession of the Degas from November 3, 1997, through March 25, 1998, when Weil requested its return.
The Weils filed suit, seeking the price for the painting via summary judgment. Are the Weils entitled to recover? Explain why or why not. [Weil v. Murray, 161 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y.)]

  • CreatedJune 06, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question