Since the Court of Appeals’ decision in William J. Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, Inc. v. Albert Rabizadeh was released on Tuesday (a decision that the New York Times noted was “first reported by the Art Law Report blog”), reactions have started to come in to the decision. Somewhat surprisingly, they have thus far been relatively few in number. On the whole, few seem exercised about the decision, and no one is gloating, probably because it restores the age-old status quo to which everyone had become accustomed.
Donn Zaretsky generally agrees with the decision, but finds the statutory interpretation used to get there somewhat unusual. Donn has a similar reaction as we did to the oral argument: since every auction has an auctioneer, what is the purpose of a provision especially for goods at public auction if the auctioneer is always an agent of the seller? Ultimately, he also concludes that “The main sense you get, reading the decision, was that the court felt like the buyer here was getting away with something.”
At the Art Newspaper, Laura Gilbert also keyed in on the court’s criticism of Rabidazeh himself, citing the decision’s “sharp words.”
