Art Law Blog : New York Art Law Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Theft, Intellectual Property, Institutional Negotiation : Manhattan, New York City

This past week brought mixed news concerning the state of the art auction market when it was reported that Christie's met expectations at its auction of post-war and contemporary art.    

For those who missed it, here is a quick look at some of the press coverage:

According to Reuters, "the sale, at which 85 percent of the 46 lots found buyers, saw briskly competitive bidding in a packed salesroom, taking in $74,151,500 including commission, right in the middle of the auction house's pre-sale estimate."  However, "both of the most expensive lots -- Jean-Michel Basquiat's "Brother Sausage," estimated at $9 million to $12 million, and Andy Warhol's "Tunafish Disaster," estimated at $6 million to $8 million -- failed to sell."

The Reuters article can be found here: www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE5A30M220091111

Although noting that the mood at the sale was "chipper," the Wall Street Journal sourly reported that the "result still paled to Christie's $113.6 million sale of contemporary art last November and its $325 million total in 2008."

The Wall Street Journal article can be found here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574528531658351184.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The New York Times was perhaps the most optimistic of the three news sources, cheerily noting that the "event drew crowds" and it was a sale with "high-profile sellers" and dealers who "looked pleased."

The New York Times article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/arts/12auct.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported in a recent article published in the October 27, 2009 edition of the New York Law Journal, Judge Bransten of the New York Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by a purchaser of a painting by contemporary artist Julian Schnabel entitled "Chinkzee."  The plaintiff claimed that, among other things, she was defrauded to the tune of $290,000, or the amount the plaintiff allegedly paid for the work. 

Judge Bransten apparently found that the plaintiff failed to exercise a requisite degree of "ordinary intelligence" in determining the value of the work prior to forking over the $290,000, leaving the plaintiff with unavailing claims of fraud.

The decision raises important questions for those who believe that they have been defrauded in the purchase or sale of art, to wit: under what circumstances can a purchaser recover if they believe they have been deceived?  As always, it depends on the facts of the case but Judge Bransten's decision indicates that, at a minimum, a purchaser of art should always attempt to obtain an independent appraisal of the value of the works to be purchased before forking over the funds.  This may particularly true where the purchaser is engaged in some capacity in the art world, making it more difficult for the future litigant to claim he or she could not have reasonably discovered the true value of the works. 

More information about the decision can be found here: www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link