A mishap at an art gallery - broken painting - Gallery owner refused to listen

Freddie_Snowbits

suited-aces wrote: »

Are you saying it's reasonable to make a profit from an accident caused by a 3 year old with downs after there was negligence?

It is the loss the gallery incurred due to the damage, the item cannot be sold that day.

The profit made by the gallery on the item must be included on this loss. Just because a child did the damage, does not absolve the parents from the loss. As for the excuse, my child has ... The parents knew of this condition before netering the shop. One parent could have stayed outside the shop lokking after the child.

Soubrette

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

It is the loss the gallery incurred due to the damage, the item cannot be sold that day.

The profit made by the gallery on the item must be included on this loss. Just because a child did the damage, does not absolve the parents from the loss. As for the excuse, my child has ... The parents knew of this condition before netering the shop. One parent could have stayed outside the shop lokking after the child.

I don't think this is true - the painting was not sold and so no assumption should have been made that it would be sold that day.

I remember an advice show where someone asked if the rate of interest given on money that was taken in error and in the process of being returned to him was fair (I think it was base rate) as he could make more in a certain savings account - the solicitors response was no, the rate was fair as you could not assume that the person would put money into that account. He also made a sarcastic comment about spending some of that money on lottery tickets - should you be compensated for the fact that you may win the lottery? (that's why I remember it).

However, once you have paid something, I don't think you can change your mind.

For a much more accurate picture you would have to see a solicitor, though.

Sou

withabix

Please name the Gallery. They are entitled to some free publicity.

ukjoel

You have a duty of responsibility for your son.
The gallery however has a duyty of care to its customers.

Your son could have been seriously injured by an unsecured painting.

Thats an issue for the local authority as all shops need to meet certain legal requirements regarding safety and also new disability regulations.

Depends how picky you want to get but you could make their lives a misery if you wanted.

Crazy_Jamie

Soubrette wrote: »

I don't think this is true - the painting was not sold and so no assumption should have been made that it would be sold that day.

You are right that no assumption can be made that it would have been sold that day, but such an assumption is not needed. The OP has raised the issue that £260 was too much for the painting because it includes an effective £60 profit to the art gallery. In fact the price is correct because the art gallery would have made that profit on a sale of the painting anyway.

The OP may have gotten away with paying less if only the glass/frame was paid for. However, ultimately this isn't now relevant because the OP paid for the whole painting. And on that eventuality the £260 price was correct.

Crazy_Jamie

ukjoel wrote: »

Your son could have been seriously injured by an unsecured painting.

Entirely irrelevant. You can talk about what 'could have happened' all day long. The blunt fact of the matter is that it didn't happen and there was no suggestion that it would have happened or was likely to happen; it is just pure speculation. In which case any sort of approach to the art gallery to 'make their lives difficult' (as you put it) is going to come across as an over zealous parent complaint which is going to (quite rightly) be batted away.

DVardysShadow

OP should have offered to pay for reglazing the frame and left it at that.

poet123

If a childs plastic cup can dislodge a painting, then clearly it was not well enough secured, therefore, the gallery must bear some responsiblity for the events which ensued.

It is not reasonable to impose a condition for the parents to buy the painting because it was then not in a saleable condition for that day, the gallery acted unreasonably in insisting the parents pay for the picture in its entirety, especially if they had not actually bought it from the artist and were merely showcasing it for her on a commission basis as is likely. Additionally, we dont know how forceful the gallery owners were in their insistence, they could have caused embarrassment to the parents which prompted them to pay up under duress.

They could make a case in the small claims court for lack of duty of care, and sue the Gallery for their out of pocket expenses associated with that lack of care , namely the cost of the painting, inconvenience and travelling expenses.

I agree it would have been so much simpler if they had just refused to pay for anything other than the re glazing.

pendulum

Busbybank wrote: »

Through our own means we traced the artist and she bought the painting back from us for £140.00 reducing her costs by £60.00 to cover damage. This leaves £60.00 profit/commission which the gallery owner has made from us.

It does not necessarily leave a £60 profit for the gallery owner. If he did buy the painting for £200, he would have had transport costs from the artist to his gallery, as well as possible storage and cleaning costs. His true profit from your sale won't be the full £60. In fact a £60 gross profit does not sound a lot for an art gallery. Maybe he charged you a reduced price under the circumstances.

Your problem if you go to court will be that you were negligent to let your child throw something that damaged the painting, and the price the gallery owner asked you to pay seems reasonable. He wasn't asking you to pay thousands for a painting that you know (or think) cost him £200. He asked you for £260 which will sound reasonable to a court. By paying the £260 at the time, you will be seen to have accepted his proposed resolution as well.

Put it down to experience and move on.

poet123

I think that if the cup had broken the glass in situ, that would be one thing, but if the cup caused the painting to fall and that fall broke the glass then that is entirely different. The painting per se was not damaged, and so only the cost of the glazing should have been levied.

Unlesss there was a sign banning children from the premises a business has to make sure their premises are safe for children, and if the force of a plastic cup can dislodge a painting I am not sure a court would agree all necessary precautions had been taken. Additionally, children with special needs are unpredictable and so again, allowances need to be made.

If the OP feels aggrieved and paid up under duress, he would have a case.