Problem

Ed expressed an interest in purchasing a Degas painting from Francis, a collector of Impressionist works. Francis, impressed by Ed's opulent life-style and worldly demeanor, delivered the Degas to Ed so that Ed could contemplate the purchase. Unbeknownst to anyone in this fact pattern, Ed was a world-class con artist with a rap sheet six feet long.

Ed consigned the Degas to Dealer in New York, who delivered the Degas to Joe, the owner of Joe's Pizzeria in Bushwick. Joe then sold the painting to George, who moved to Brazil. Meanwhile, Ed skipped town without a trace.

Francis learned about the sale, and since Ed was nowhere to be found, sued Dealer for the purchase price of the Degas.

How do you think a New York court would decide this case, based on the relevant authority (cases and statutes) of Porter v. Wertz & Lindholm v. Brant case?

Consider Porter v. Wertz and Lindholm. The artist-dealer relationship exists in the primary market (either an artist or an artist's estate).

In this fact pattern of Francis v. Dealer case, there is no artist. The work is a Degas and it is in the secondary market.

Please Draft your response in IRAC FORMAT:

ISSUE:

RULES/PRECEDENT:

ANALYSIS/APPLICATION OF PRECEDENT TO THIS CASE:

CONCLUSION: WHAT DO YOU THINK THE NEW YORK COURT WILL DECIDE?