8. In 2007, Mewhinney decided to sell the contents of his wine cellar. Kurtz, as president of The London Wineman, Inc., contacted Mewhinney about the sale. London Wineman was in the business of purchasing wine from individuals and reselling it through an auction house. Mewhinney sent a list of what was available, which indicated that the cellar contained five bottles of 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild. Kurtz arranged to visit the wine cellar to inspect the wines to ensure the bottles were in sufficient condition for resale. After the brief inspection, Kurtz identified which bottles he wanted to purchase, including the five bottles of the purported 1945 Chateau Mouton Rothschild priced at $6,000 per bottle. When the bottles arrived, Kurtz discovered that four of the five bottles were actually labeled as 1955 wines.

After hearing all the evidence, the trial jury found Mewhinney made a negligent misrepresentation upon which Kurtz had justifiably relied. The jury awarded $24,000 in damages. Mewhinney appealed the judgment. What was the negligent misrepresentation at issue? What do you think the outcome of the appeal was? Why? [Mewhinney v. London Wineman, Inc., 2011 WL 989058 (Tex. App.).]