1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

FLIPPING OUT OVER FAKE COINS

ENI v. B. was a dispute between ENI, a coin dealer, and *B, the principal of *B Ventures, a pawn shop operator. ENI purchased a collection of approximately 40 coins from *B for $77,030. *B, who primarily dealt in jewelry, had accumulated the coins over time and approached ENI—whose principals were known experts in rare coins—for appraisal and sale.

*B claimed he made no representations or warranties about the coins’ authenticity or value, relying entirely on ENI’s expertise. After examining the coins, ENI’s president made a verbal offer, which *B accepted. Later, ENI informed *B that a third party had identified several coins as counterfeit and demanded a partial refund of $8,010.

*B refused, asserting that the coins were sold as a single collection and that he had made no guarantees. He questioned whether the coins deemed counterfeit were the same ones he had sold. ENI sued, alleging breach of contract, breach of warranty, and mutual mistake.

*B moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit detailing the transaction and his lack of representations. The Nassau County District Court found that *B had established a prima facie case for dismissal. The transaction was arms-length, and ENI had the opportunity to inspect the coins. ENI failed to submit admissible evidence to counter *B’s account. Expert statements provided by ENI did not establish a clear link between the examined coins and those sold by *B, nor did they address the chain of custody.

ENI also argued that *B was a merchant under the UCC and that an implied warranty of merchantability applied. The court rejected this, noting that ENI’s inspection and expertise negated such a warranty. The claim of mutual mistake also failed, as *B had not held any belief about the coins’ authenticity and had relied on ENI’s judgment.

On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that ENI had not raised any material issues of fact that would warrant a trial. 

Hope this case make cents to you .... 


# # #

DECISION

ENI v. B
Categories: