Weil v. Murray Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An art dealer signed a contract to buy a painting, listing himself as “Buyer” but also referencing an “undisclosed principal.” The court held the dealer personally liable for the price and found a triable issue of fact as to whether another dealer was a liable principal.
Legal Significance: An agent who signs a contract for a partially disclosed principal is personally liable. An act inconsistent with the seller’s ownership, such as altering the goods, constitutes acceptance under UCC § 2-606, entitling the seller to an action for the price under § 2-709.
Weil v. Murray Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Robert and Jean Weil agreed to sell an Edgar Degas painting for $1 million. Defendant Mark Murray, an art dealer, negotiated the purchase. The final written agreement, signed by Murray and the Weils, identified Murray as the “Buyer.” However, the contract also stated, “It is understood that the eventual Buyer is an Undisclosed Principal client of Mark Murray, and that said undisclosed principal shall also be bound by this agreement.” Murray claimed he was acting for another dealer, defendant Ian Peck, who denied authorizing the purchase but whose attorney drafted an initial version of the agreement. After the contract was signed but before payment was due, the painting was sent to a conservator for restoration work, which Peck paid for. The Weils never received the $1 million payment and eventually took back possession of the painting. They sued Murray for the contract price and Peck as the alleged principal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under UCC Article 2 and the common law of agency, is an agent who signs a contract as “Buyer” personally liable for the purchase price, and can the partially disclosed principal also be held liable if a jury finds an agency relationship existed?
Yes. Summary judgment for the seller against the agent (Murray) for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea c
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under UCC Article 2 and the common law of agency, is an agent who signs a contract as “Buyer” personally liable for the purchase price, and can the partially disclosed principal also be held liable if a jury finds an agency relationship existed?
Conclusion
This case illustrates the intersection of UCC sales principles and agency law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
Legal Rule
1. Under N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-709(1)(a), a seller may recover the full Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed Murray's liability. It rejected his argument that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An agent (Murray) who signs a contract as “Buyer” is personally