Claim for Reimbursement of the Purchase Price due to Fundamental Error in the Purchase of a Painting Sold as Genuine, but Inauthentic

Facts

X. purchased a painting in June 1948 from Mrs. Y., which was considered a "Self-Portrait of the Painter van Gogh". In January 1952, art historian Dr. De la Faille declared the painting to be a copy and not painted by van Gogh. X. then demanded a refund of the purchase price of 80,000 Swiss Francs and 25,000 US Dollars from Y.

The lower courts dismissed the claim, as they considered X.'s warranty claims to be time-barred and forfeited. X. appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court decided that X. was entitled to the right of avoidance due to fundamental error under Art. 24 para. 4 CO, in addition to the warranty claims. An error regarding the authenticity of a painting is to be considered a fundamental error, as authenticity is an essential circumstance for the conclusion of the contract.

The Federal Supreme Court denied that X. had known about the error earlier than January 1952. The avoidance of the error on 14 February 1952 was therefore timely. The unjust enrichment claim…