Plaintiff, a jewelry store, stated a viable breach of contract action against Sotheby’s.  Plaintiff owned $4 million in diamonds which it had obtained from Rechnitz as security for his debt.  Plaintiff and Rechnitz met with a Sotheby’s agent, giving him the diamonds to have appraised for possible auction at Sotheby’s.  Sotheby’s form contract referred to only a single consignor, but its agent wrote in the names of both Rechnitx’s company and plaintiff.  Plaintiff alleged that it immediately objected that it was sole owner of the diamonds and that Rechnitz and Sotheby’s agent agreed.  Also, the consignment agreement didn’t have an integration clause.  Held, when Sotheby’s released the diamonds (without notice to plaintiff) to a supposed agent of Rechnitz, it breached the contract–at least, if the jury believes the facts alleged in the complaint.  The written agreement was sufficiently ambiguous to allow introduction of parol evidence to explain it.  However, the trial court correctly sustained Sotheby’s demurrer to the negligence claim as it was barred by the economic loss rule.