It is in the news that Peter Doig has won a case, including being granted $2.5 million in fees, after he said he did not paint a picture.
From the NYT at the time the case was submitted, the claimant says "His suit contends that Mr. Doig is either confused or lying and that his denials blew up a plan to sell the work for millions of dollars." After seeing the facts of the case, it seems obvious that Mr. Doig was neither confused or lying, but what if he was?
None of the articles state exactly what law may have been broken here. Under what circumstances could someone sue another for either being confused or lying about the fact of if an item was created by them?