posted on October 31, 2000 09:18:24 PM
Well, maybe not. I don't suppose AW needs another 450 page thread anytime soon.
Although it doesn't really affect me or the area in which I sell, it looks like the kind of situation that many sellers could find themselves in. I'd sure be interested to see how this all turns out.
posted on November 1, 2000 09:47:11 AM
Yes Kirk, I agree.
(Standard Disclaimer: This is not legal advice and I am not an attorney)
My previous analysis was meant to apply to the SA and the buyer, HCQ is correct that there (probably) isn't a contract relationship between the buyer and the original painting owner who stupidly donated it. I was generalizing the situation for the purpose of discussion. This specific situation obviously also involves how the law treats the SA as the middleman, which again varies and I think there are property law issues related to a decedents' estate too, so it's really convoluted.
My only point was that if I saw a $10,000 painting at a garage sale and I knew it was worth that much and I bought it for a buck, I might not be home free (or at least might need to talk to a lawyer in my state).
Sorry to add to confusion.
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
posted on November 10, 2000 01:04:54 PM
In America, if you buy a piece of property, sell it two minutes later, and thereby make a fortune, you keep the fortune. For some reason, however, if it is art, the opposite is true: you're a demonized scum bag and obligated to return your ill gotten booty. What is really weird is that this "doctrine" has a long history and has been in the papers many times over the past five years or so. My question is this: why do these big mouth braggerts blab it all over town when they make a score? Just sell the darn thing and get on to the next score.
posted on November 10, 2000 01:36:07 PM
The article above paints (hardeeharhar) a completely different picture than what I'd thought the situation was. Knowing the owner of the painting was not at fault for it ending up at the Salvation Army makes me side with him. He shouldn't have to pay for someone else's error.
The person who bought it wasn't at fault for buying it, either -- but he lied about it. Pretty scummy.
posted on November 10, 2000 02:41:52 PM
I have a sick feeling some law professor out there is going to use this case for a first year contracts exam because you could easily spend a couple hours just coming up with all the arguments for all the parties involved.
I am just glad it will not be me taking said exam!
________
I never had one, and I didn't want one, and I don't, so now I do...
Learn a new concept everyday.