Being sued for breach of contract

[jgreen7756]

I Placed an antique vase in a major NY auction. It did not meet its reserve-did not sell-and I took it back.
I offered it for sale on ebay,not describing it any any specific way or name, and a buyer made several offers before we mutually agreed on a price, and ended the auction prior to the ebay auction deadline. In our emailing back and forth, he asked if I had any background on it. I stated what I was told about it from the auction house that had identified it.
He came to my apartment, viewed it, and then paid for it and left.
Two months later, when he offered it for sale, he was told it was a reproduction, and demanded his money be returned in full.
I told him that his information was incorrect, and that it had been in a well know NY auction several months prior, and they would not have been selling it if they hadn't believed it to be genuine.
I offered to re-sell it for him, but he was insistant on getting his money returned.
We could not come to a mutual agreement on how to settle our differences.
I did not, at the time of sale, give him a receipt, nor did I offer a money back guaranty if the vase was not what he thought it was.
I am now being sued for knowingly selling a fraudulent piece of glass, and for breach of contract.
His lawyer feels that my email describing what I thought the vase was, is an express warranty.
What am I liable for? How can they prove I knew it wasn't real? (I don't believe its fake).What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[BL]

I Placed an antique vase in a major NY auction. It did not meet its reserve-did not sell-and I took it back.
I offered it for sale on ebay,not describing it any any specific way or name, and a buyer made several offers before we mutually agreed on a price, and ended the auction prior to the ebay auction deadline. In our emailing back and forth, he asked if I had any background on it. I stated what I was told about it from the auction house that had identified it.
He came to my apartment, viewed it, and then paid for it and left.
Two months later, when he offered it for sale, he was told it was a reproduction, and demanded his money be returned in full.
I told him that his information was incorrect, and that it had been in a well know NY auction several months prior, and they would not have been selling it if they hadn't believed it to be genuine.
I offered to re-sell it for him, but he was insistant on getting his money returned.
We could not come to a mutual agreement on how to settle our differences.
I did not, at the time of sale, give him a receipt, nor did I offer a money back guaranty if the vase was not what he thought it was.
I am now being sued for knowingly selling a fraudulent piece of glass, and for breach of contract.
His lawyer feels that my email describing what I thought the vase was, is an express warranty.
What am I liable for? How can they prove I knew it wasn't real? (I don't believe its fake).What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Doesn't the Auction house keep records ?

Who exactly identified it ?

 

[latigo]

Clearly if the vase is proven to be authentic and not a replica, you are okay and the sale stands as made.

But if the buyer is correct and the vase is shown to be a copy, then you are legally responsible to return his money regardless of your thinking.

The reason being that you will be placed in a legal dilemma or Catch-22 in which you will have to admit either (1) that you were unaware that it was a replica and has no special value, or (2) that you were aware and failed to inform the buyer.

One way or the other, the buyer would be entitled to unwind the sale. Either on grounds of a mutual mistake of a material fact (no informed meeting or consensus of the minds as to the very essence of the contract of sale), or fraud by misrepresentation of a material fact.

It will be buyer’s initial burden to produce expert testimony as to the true character of the vase. If you were in a position to rebut that evidence, you could of course do so through your own expert’s testimony.

But the single fact that the auction house to which it was consigend attempted to sell it as being authentic will not serve as competent evidence of its antique character.