1. What is the difference between a core description express warranty and other types of express warranty?

2. Why was the disclaimer in the auction materials ineffective?

3. What lessons should those who sell goods at auctions take from this case?

Richard W. La Trace attended an auction at B & B Antiques, Auction & Realty, a business owned and operated by Ray Webster, Deborah Webster, Bo Webster, and Laura Webster (collectively “the Websters”). La Trace purchased five lamps that were identified at the auction as “Tiffany” lamps and one lampshade that was also identified at the auction as a “Tiffany” product. La Trace spent a total of $56,200 on the lamps.

La Trace contacted Fontaine’s Auction Gallery in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to inquire about selling the lamps in an auction. Fontaine’s sent Dean Lowry, an expert in Tiffany products, to examine La Trace’s lamps and Lowry determined that the lamps were not authentic Tiffany products but were, in fact, reproductions. La Trace filed suit against the Websters and B & B for fraudulent suppression, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, breach of contract, negligence, and wantonness.* The Websters claimed that they thought the lamps were authentic and pointed out that their sales brochure and “Conditions of Auction” document contained the following disclaimer:

1. All property is sold AS IS WHERE IS, and we make NO guarantees, warranties or representations, expressed or implied, with respect to the property or the correctness of the catalog or other description of authenticity of authorship, physical condition, size, quality, rarity, importance, provenance, exhibitions, literature or historical relevance of the property or otherwise. No statement anywhere, whether oral or written, shall be deemed such a guarantee, warranty or representation.

On a motion for summary judgment, the court found for the Websters, indicating that La Trace trusted blindly and should not have done so. La Trace appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

THOMAS, Judge … La Trace alleged in his complaint that the Websters described the lamps that he bought as “Tiffany” products during the auction. Alabama courts have held that statements by a seller that are mere sales talk or “puffery” do not give rise to express warranties. Examples of puffery include statements describing an item as “in good shape,” or “in good condition.” On the other hand, as provided in § 7-2-313, representations of fact do give rise to express warranties. This court has held that a statement by a seller of a boat to the effect that the boat was “winterized” was a statement of fact.

Similarly, this court has held that a statement by a seller of a trailer that the trailer was a 2000 model-year trailer was a statement of fact.

The Websters do not dispute that the description of the lamps as “Tiffany” products was an affirmation of fact or a “description of the goods.” The Websters claim, however, that the description of the lamps as “Tiffany” products did not become part of the basis of the bargain because La Trace signed the conditions of auction before any potential express warranties could be made, effectively rendering such warranties inoperative.… [T]he alleged representations that the lamps were “Tiffany” products took place during the auction and were not accompanied by any qualifying statements indicating that the authenticity of the lamps was in doubt. Although the disclaimers that appeared in the sales brochure and the “Conditions of Auction” document may have been effective to prevent the formation of any express warranties that might otherwise have arisen in those documents, a disclaimer in a document is [not] effective to prevent a seller from making express warranties in the future.

In view of the principle that the whole purpose of the law of warranty is to determine what it is that the seller has in essence agreed to sell, the policy is adopted of those cases which refuse except in unusual circumstances to recognize a material deletion of the seller’s obligation. Thus, a contract is normally a contract for a sale of something describable and described. A clause generally disclaiming “all warranties, express or implied” cannot reduce the seller’s obligation with respect to such description and therefore cannot be given literal effect...........................