近日，王某花70万元从张某处购得一幅署名史国良的画作《金秋》，后经史国良本人鉴定为仿制品。王某多次与卖主张某协商退款未果，故诉至法院，要求返还购画款并承担相应利息。原告王某诉称，他在任某介绍下认识了张某，并于2014年7月3日在北京购买了这幅画。在购买前，他详细询问了画的来源，但张 Certain assured him that the painting came directly from the artist, "absolutely reliable and genuine." When they exchanged the painting, Wang again emphasized that he wanted a genuine work of art. Zhang signed his name on the back of the painting to take responsibility for its authenticity.

After purchasing the painting, Wang showed it to a friend who took photos and sent them to be authenticated by History. The response was that the painting was fake. However, Wang was unable to reach an agreement with Zhang about returning the painting. In February 2021, Wang found History and asked him to authenticate the painting again. After examining it carefully, History wrote in his opinion: "This counterfeit is a forgery of my own works."

The plaintiff argued that defendant Zhang had sold him a fake painting nearly three years ago and had been stalling excuses for not resolving it yet. Therefore, he sued in court requesting judgment that defendant return $70 million plus interest at 11.86% per year for a total of $81.86 million.

Defendant's agent countered by saying that while there were no guarantees made by Zhang regarding authenticity or provenance when selling this particular piece called Autumn ink drawing painted by history himself as true or real but told king certain look first then talk price if you like after all view before buy would agree upon price so much more than now bought 80thousand yuan

He also mentioned how difficult it can be without any professional expertise nor knowledge one might find themselves lost within this market place especially given these kinds' specific needs since such items are unique cases where both parties must rely heavily upon their own judgement rather than some sorta guarantee system which does not exist here either because buying something new means taking risks involved - just remember what I said earlier about potential risks associated with purchases without proper identification verification prior purchase;

In summary we have two sides here one side claims he did everything right (asking questions) another side says don't blame us! It seems though there isn't much evidence supporting either party's claim so let me know your thoughts please?