Directed by Professor Dr. Kurt Siehr, Professor Dr. Wolfgang Ernst, and Dr. Andrea F. G. Raschèr, the seminar exposed the legal fundaments of art auctions and provided an overview of some underlying problems currently faced by practitioners and legal scholars. The seminar was followed by a panel discussion called the "Boon and Bane of Auction Houses for the Art Market,” gathering directors of auction houses as well as art market and art law expert

Bandle, Anne Laure

RERO DOC Digital Library

“Legal Questions of Art Auctions”(Rechtsfragen der Kunstauktion):Seminar held by the Europe Institute,University of Zurich and the Center ofArt and Law, Zurich, 13 April 2011Anne Laure Bandle*Directed by Professor Dr. Kurt Siehr, Professor Dr.Wolfgang Ernst, and Dr. AndreaF. G. Raschèr, the seminar exposed the legal fundaments of art auctions and pro-vided an overview of some underlying problems currently faced by practitionersand legal scholars. The seminar was followed by a panel discussion called the “Boonand Bane of Auction Houses for the Art Market,” gathering directors of auctionhouses as well as art market and art law experts.As an introduction Kurt Siehr subtly pointed out several legal consequences de-riving from what he qualified as a “nightmare for legal scholars”: the threefold legalrelationship involving consignor, auctioneer, and buyer. This may even turn into aquadrifold relationship, should a forth party lay claim to property for instance.Cyril Koller reported on some of the key facts and figures of the art auctionmarket from an auctioneer’s perspective. The role of its main players has slightlyshifted during the last years. For example, auction houses increasingly conductprivate sales or offer lots acquired directly by the artist. Old Master dealers occa-sionally share the acquisition costs at auction of paintings they then resell to pri-vate collectors.Thanks to the disclosure of auction sale results, Cyril Koller alleged that auc-tioneers are the only reliable and transparent art market indicator. These resultsare analyzed by online databases, which provide a useful tool to all stakeholders ofthe art market. The Internet has been particularly helpful also to small auctionhouses to scale up outreach.Given the fierce competition between major auction houses, Cyril Koller nameda few indicators on which the seller often relies when choosing a particular auc-tion house. He believes that the same major artwork is likely to be sold at an equalprice, however, regardless of which well-established auction house offers it for sale.*Art Law Center, University of Geneva, Email: AnneLaure.Bandle@unige.chInternational Journal of Cultural Property (2011) 18:449–451. Printed in the USA.Copyright © 2011 International Cultural Property Societydoi:10.1017/S0940739111000348449https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739111000348Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 14:32:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available atWolfgang Ernst presented the legal fundaments and contractual relationshipsof auction sales. Each relationship has to undergo a separate examination in termsof contractual qualification, international and domestic jurisdiction, and applica-ble law, including the relevant Swiss norms and validity requirements for condi-tions of business.Practical complications may arise when the auction house acts as agent for ac-count of the undisclosed principal. Unlike various foreign legislations, Swiss lawonly exceptionally permits the representation of an unidentified principal (cf. art.32 Federal Act on the Amendment of the Swiss Civil Code, CO), which generallyfalls under the same legal scheme as representation without authority (art. 39 CO).Therefore, despite any statement to act as agent in the name and account of theundisclosed principal, the auction house may be held liable.Wolfgang Ernst ultimately mentioned the “apparent antagonism of interests”between auctioneer and purchaser, in particular with regard to liability and ham-mer price. In fact, while the purchaser strives for the lowest price and greatestliability guarantee offered by the auctioneer, the auction house pursues the oppo-site interest along with the consignor’s.Florian Schmidt-Gabain advanced several theses on the due diligence require-ments imposed on art dealers and auction houses under article 16, sections 1 and2, of the Federal Act on the International Transfer of Cultural Property should anart dealer buy a cultural good at auction. These requirements include identity andprovenance verifications of consignor and consigned good (section 2).Departing from the assumption that the buyer concludes the sale agreementwith the consignor rather than with the auction house, the art dealer auctioningthe good would have to comply with due diligence and examine the rightfulownership of the consignor. This would require the disclosure of the consignor’sidentity by the auction house, however, which may be circumvented in reducingthe scope of section 2 on teleological grounds, hence excluding its applicationto art dealers buying at auction. Florian Schmidt-Gabain also revisited section 1on the general circumstances whereupon art dealers may assume that the auc-tioned lot is neither stolen, nor sold against the will of its owner, illicitly exca-vated, or illegally imported. Given dual due diligence requirements for auctionhouses and art dealers, the latter may rely on information provided by the auc-tion catalogue and solely have to proceed to further verifications where informa-tion is incomplete.Professor Andreas Heinemann focused his presentation on antitrust issues ofthe auction market in Europe and in the United States departing from the price-fixing scandal between Sotheby’s and Christie’s. Christie’s benefited from a pun-ishment exemp-tion under the U.S. Cartel Leniency Policy, whereas both auctionhouses were targeted by class actions filed by deceived sellers, buyers, and share-holders. The risks for participants of a cartel are generally more far reaching inthe United States than in Europe, because according to U.S. antitrust law they canbe sanctioned by fines and imprisonment.450 ANNE LAURE BANDLEhttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739111000348Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 14:32:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available atSeveral potential cartel scenarios exist on the bidder’s side, such as dealers pool-ing and shill bidding. Qualifying such behavior as anticompetitive rather than asunfair business practice may be problematic, given that demand cartels typicallydecrease and not increase prices. Vertical exclusivity arrangements between an auc-tion house and several consignors bear the risk of customer foreclosure. Anothergrowing practical and legal concern exists in the dominant position by unassail-able attribution experts (e.g., authentication boards and authors of catalogues rai-sonnés). Such a natural market leader position is abusive should the expert refuseto examine the artwork but not where examination results are unfavorable. Basedon antitrust law, every owner is entitled to an authentication and attribution ex-amination de lege artis.Dr. Mark A. Reutter gave an overview of many legitimate and illegitimate ma-nipulations in auction trade transactions, which may occur by bidders, consignors,or auctioneers.On the side of the purchasers, bid rigging and bidding communities such as theMedici Conspiracy may distort the price formation of a lot at auction, as much astelephone bids and bids placed directly by the auction house—all lacking of trans-parency. According to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, consignors are authorized to in-fluence price formation by placing bids on their own goods, as long as it ismentioned in the auction catalogue (BGE 109 II 123; 112 II 337). Auction houses,however, provide buyers with financing opportunities and sellers with guaranteeson auction proceeds, all of which have also met with great criticism. Mark A. Re-utter concluded by remembering that many manipulations remain undisclosedand that the art auction market is only “a part of the puzzle.”Professor Claire Huguenin examined the issue of the buyer’s warranty rightsand their exclusion and limitation in art auctions by means of three Swiss courtcases (BGE 126 III 59; 123 III 165; 114 II 132).Generally, in view of the broad exemptions stipulated in their conditions of busi-ness, auction houses can only be held accountable for fraudulent deceit. However,the buyer may also turn against the auction house for gross negligent behavior asto deficiency in title and defect regarding the quality of the artwork. Pursuant tothe Swiss Federal Tribunal, an agreement on general terms of the conditions ofbusiness by the weaker or less experienced party does not cover unusual clauses,of which he was not made specifically aware (BGE 119 II 443).Huguenin criticized the “market-maker” status imposed on auction houses byreferring to Tony Shafrazi Gallery v. Christie’s, Index No. 112192/2007 (Sup.N.Y.Co.2008), fearing an imbalance in pooling risks between auctioneer and pur-chaser. Purchasers already benefit from authenticity guarantees by major auctionhouses despite the various opportunities to gather information about the lot priorto the sale.Andrea Raschèr closed the seminar with an emphasis on how the threefold con-tractual relationship of auction sales can raise many complications as well as scoresof interesting conclusions.LEGAL QUESTIONS OF ART AUCTIONS 451https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739111000348Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 14:32:52, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

"Legal Questions of Art Auctions” (Rechtsfragen der Kunstauktion): Seminar held by the Europe Institute, University of Zurich and the Center of Art and Law, Zurich, 13 April 2011: 13 April 2011

"Legal Questions of Art Auctions” (Rechtsfragen der Kunstauktion): Seminar held by the Europe Institute, University of Zurich and the Center of Art and Law, Zurich, 13 April 2011: 13 April 2011

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

RERO DOC Digital Library