AUTHENTICITY OF A ARTWORK

Art law: Proof and Responsibility

Back on a judgment rendered by the Court of Cassation last year, which allows us to understand the question of the authenticity of a work of art, a question which arises mainly when the work is offered for sale via an auction house. Indeed, if in doubt about the authenticity of a work, how can you provide proof of its authenticity? What then is the role and responsibility of the expert? What is the liability of the auction house that offered a fake for sale? These are all questions that are interesting to address after this case law decision.

By a decision rendered on May 16, 2013 (Cass. 1ère civ., May 16, 2013, n ° 11-14.434), the Court of Cassation ruled on the question of the owner's liability for selling a work art over which there was some doubt as to its authenticity.

Indeed, while the painting entitled 'Still life with flasks' was sold at auction by its owner, the beneficiary of the artist-painter - to whom the said canvas was attributed - had its infringement seized, considering that there was a doubt on the authenticity of this work and on the certificate of the expert produced.

The artist's beneficiary therefore sued the seller who owns the painting and the auctioneer for infringement and civil liability for infringement of the moral rights and reputation of the artist, and claimed, as such, damages.

By a judgment of January 10, 2011, the Nancy Court of Appeal dismissed the artist-painter's claimant of his claim for damages, considering that he did not provide further evidence on the falsity of the table.

In fact, the Paris Court of Appeal had already ruled on the penal plan on January 12, 1979 and had dismissed the father of the original owner of the work, who had transmitted the painting to him, for the purposes of prosecuting the heads of fraud and fraud in artistic matters and had stated that 'the falsity of the work was not more demonstrated than its authenticity' and this, after noting the difference of opinion of two colleges of experts appointed to proceed when examining the work.

However, the Court of Cassation, on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code, will recognize the liability of the seller of the painting and of the auctioneer.

Indeed, the High Court notes that if the beneficiary of the artist has not invoked new elements to demonstrate the falsity of the work, the owner of the work presented it at the auction. public, without the slightest reservation, like a work produced by the artist-painter, while the decision of January 12, 1979 cast doubt on the authenticity of the canvas.

The Court of Cassation therefore considers that the appeal judges should have questioned the responsibility of the auctioneer, as well as that of the owner of the painting, for the sole fact of having presented for sale, a painting whose authenticity was, moreover, contested, because of the divergent opinions raised, which were not contradicted by a new element.

Ultimately, this judgment is an illustration of the question, frequent in art, of responsibility in the event of doubt about the authenticity of a work.

While in principle the burden of proof rests on the person who disputes this authenticity, the fact remains that the seller, like the auction house, may also be held liable.

The Commercial Code provides for this responsibility incumbent on both auction houses and experts.

Article L.321-17 of the said Code provides as well as: 'The companies selling voluntary furniture at public auction and the public or ministerial officers competent to carry out judicial and voluntary sales, as well as the experts who carry out the valuation of goods, engage their liability during or on the occasion of sales of furniture by public auction, in accordance with the rules applicable to such sales ”.

On the liability of the auction house

In general, the auction house engages its tort liability, on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code, in the event of fault during the sale.

It can be held liable for various reasons and the range of case law decisions in this regard testify to the fact that it is common for these houses to see their civil liability engaged.

Thus, for example, an auction house will be responsible in the event of the sale of a good without having verified its provenance, in the event of a catalog containing insufficient or inaccurate information, or if it has communicated the seller's name late. to the successful tenderer.

Art law: Proof and Responsibility

Back on a judgment rendered by the Court of Cassation last year, which allows us to understand the question of the authenticity of a work of art, a question which arises mainly when the work is offered for sale via an auction house. Indeed, if in doubt about the authenticity of a work, how can you provide proof of its authenticity? What then is the role and responsibility of the expert? What is the liability of the auction house that offered a fake for sale? These are all questions that are interesting to address after this case law decision.

By a decision rendered on May 16, 2013 (Cass. 1ère civ., May 16, 2013, n ° 11-14.434), the Court of Cassation ruled on the question of the owner's liability for selling a work art over which there was some doubt as to its authenticity.

Indeed, while the painting entitled 'Still life with flasks' was sold at auction by its owner, the beneficiary of the artist-painter - to whom the said canvas was attributed - had its infringement seized, considering that there was a doubt on the authenticity of this work and on the certificate of the expert produced.

The artist's beneficiary therefore sued the seller who owns the painting and the auctioneer for infringement and civil liability for infringement of the moral rights and reputation of the artist, and claimed, as such, damages.

By a judgment of January 10, 2011, the Nancy Court of Appeal dismissed the artist-painter's claimant of his claim for damages, considering that he did not provide further evidence on the falsity of the table.

In fact, the Paris Court of Appeal had already ruled on the penal plan on January 12, 1979 and had dismissed the father of the original owner of the work, who had transmitted the painting to him, for the purposes of prosecuting the heads of fraud and fraud in artistic matters and had stated that 'the falsity of the work was not more demonstrated than its authenticity' and this, after noting the difference of opinion of two colleges of experts appointed to proceed when examining the work.

However, the Court of Cassation, on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code, will recognize the liability of the seller of the painting and of the auctioneer.

Indeed, the High Court notes that if the beneficiary of the artist has not invoked new elements to demonstrate the falsity of the work, the owner of the work presented it at the auction. public, without the slightest reservation, like a work produced by the artist-painter, while the decision of January 12, 1979 cast doubt on the authenticity of the canvas.

The Court of Cassation therefore considers that the appeal judges should have questioned the responsibility of the auctioneer, as well as that of the owner of the painting, for the sole fact of having presented for sale, a painting whose authenticity was, moreover, contested, because of the divergent opinions raised, which were not contradicted by a new element.

Ultimately, this judgment is an illustration of the question, frequent in art, of responsibility in the event of doubt about the authenticity of a work.

While in principle the burden of proof rests on the person who disputes this authenticity, the fact remains that the seller, like the auction house, may also be held liable.

The Commercial Code provides for this responsibility incumbent on both auction houses and experts.

Article L.321-17 of the said Code provides as well as: 'The companies selling voluntary furniture at public auction and the public or ministerial officers competent to carry out judicial and voluntary sales, as well as the experts who carry out the valuation of goods, engage their liability during or on the occasion of sales of furniture by public auction, in accordance with the rules applicable to such sales ”.

On the liability of the auction house

In general, the auction house engages its tort liability, on the basis of article 1382 of the Civil Code, in the event of fault during the sale.

It can be held liable for various reasons and the range of case law decisions in this regard testify to the fact that it is common for these houses to see their civil liability engaged.

Thus, for example, an auction house will be responsible in the event of the sale of a good without having verified its provenance, in the event of a catalog containing insufficient or inaccurate information, or if it has communicated the seller's name late. to the successful tenderer.

Source : https://www.jurisexpert.net/droit-de-lart-authenticite-dune-oeuvre-dart-preuve-et-responsabilite/