The Weils filed suit seeking the price for thepainting via s

The Weils filed suit, seeking the price for thepainting via summary judgment. Are the Weilsentitled to recover? Explain why or why not. [ Weil v. Murray , 161 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y.)] Copyright | CENGAGE Learning | Anderson\'s Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume | Edition 22 | jus2pickey@gmail.com | Printed from www.chegg.com

Solution

In order for a seller to establish a cause of action for the purchase price together with incidentals, s/he must establish that the buyer agreed to buy the goods, accepted them, and failed to pay the purchase price.

In this case, Murray examined the painting and signed an agreement with Weils to keep the painting with him for inspection as he is having a client for it. Murray got the penting and discussed with Peck, with Peck agreeing it to buy from weils with Murray acting as a broker. Then Murray made a sales contract with Weils for the painting at an amount of $1,000,000. But eventually the sales agreement between Murray and Peck did not materialize and murray had the posession for long and finally returned to Weil. Weil claimed for the money.

As, Murray inspected the painting at the Plaintiffs’ home-also, had additional opportunity to examine the painting at his gallery. There is no evidence that he found the painting unsatisfactory or non-conforming. Hence, the \"cause of action for the purchase\" is established and it can be said Mark Murray accepted the painting and his subsequent actions were inconsistent with Plaintiffs ownership. Therefore, Weils will be able to recover.