Paul is a highly experienced, creative and tenacious litigator
paul.russell@russell.nl +31 20 301 55 55How can you prevent, as an art seller, that you will be held liable when a person who acts on your behalf gives incorrect information on a work of art?
In a case the Arnhem Court of Appeal has recently decided on, an art dealer had commissioned an auction house to auction 71 works of art, including a sculpture by the French artist Edgar Degas. The sculpture by Degas was not sold during the auction but after the auction, when a private art collector – a great fan of the Degas oeuvre, as he said himself – bought the sculpture. The buyer requested the auction house whether “provenance” was available with regard to the sculpture by Degas, the answer of the auction house was positive and the buyer was told that he would receive it later. However, the buyer never received the provenance and the sculpture turned out to be a fake.
The court decided that the vendor, the selling art dealer, had to pay back the total purchase price to the buyer. The buyer was to assume, according to the Court, that he had purchased a genuine Degas. The notification by the auction house that sufficient provenance was available was to be considered as a notification by the selling art dealer, as, in this situation, the auction house acted as a representative of this art dealer. The fact that the selling art dealer had informed the auction house that no (sufficient) provenance was available does not make a difference. The art dealer is thus held accountable for the information the auction house provided to the buyer, even if this information is unjustified and opposed to the information the selling art dealer provided to the auction house.
The same decision of the Court of Appeal shows that, apart from the selling art dealer, the buyer of art also bears responsibility for his or her purchase. The very same private art collector had purchased another sculpture from the same auction house, which, according to the auction catalogue, was attributed to the Swedish artist Anders Zorn. This sculpture turned out to be a fake as well. However, the art collector had not inquired about the provenance regarding the Zorn when buying the sculpture. Therefore, the court decided that the art dealer could not necessarily expect that this sculpture was an authentic object by the artist in question. The art dealer does not have to repay the purchase price of this false sculpture to the buyer.
Would you like to know more about buying and selling art or do you have any questions on art and law regarding, for instance, incorrect attribution, buying at auction or consignment purchase? Please contact:
In principle, a continuing performance agreement can always be terminated, even if no arrangements have been made in this regard. But you can’t just do it. What do you need to take into account when terminating the agreement? And what if you want to deviate from the agreements made about terminating the agreement?
A new EU regulation requires anyone wishing to import cultural goods into the EU to have an import license or submit an importer’s declaration from 28 June 2025 onwards. When is which type of document required? How does it affect art dealers, galleries, auction houses and collectors, both inside and outside the EU?
If a contract has ended, there may still be obligations you want your contract partner to fulfil, such as warranties or confidentiality. You can regulate this through survival clauses. What should you look out for when including such clauses?
The franchise agreement and the distribution agreement are very similar, but there are also important differences. What are the consequences if you conclude a franchise agreement when it is actually a distribution agreement or vice versa? How can you avoid this misunderstanding?
The government has outlined in a letter how it intends to translate the proposals from the Buma Committee’s advice into regulations. What does this mean in practice for private individuals who own art or other cultural goods? But first: what are the rules for exporting protected cultural goods at the moment?
The government has outlined in a letter how it intends to translate the proposals from the Buma Committee’s advice into regulations. What does this mean in practice for private owners of art or other cultural goods? Will this solve the problems of owners?
