Art Purchase

CJS123

Hello all,

A moral and a legal dilemma for you.

Last week my wife and I purchased a print we like the look of from a shop, sold for £150. We unwrapped it from the bubble wrap today and put it on our wall. On doing so we noticed the frame was badly damaged. Subsequently we called the store today to see if we could bring it back for a new frame. 'Thank goodness you phoned' said the store, 'we actually sold you the original (worth £1,500!) not the print. The art was on a wall in the store with the price tag of £150.

Legally do we have to return this?

As we left no details on purchase, if I had not called today, we would have been none the wiser.

I appreciate that now we know, there is a moral point to consider as well.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Craig

halibut2209

Does the receipt say it's a print?

I would say that the contract has not been concluded as the agreement was for a print. Therefore they are entitled to reclaim the artwork, but at their expense.

daytona0

I THINK you are ok to keep it... but consider the poster above.

They offered 150 quid for the piece, you agreed to pay 150 pound and so the contract of sale was formed for that price.


As a side note, just be careful that this isn't any sort of scam. Not sure how it would be but meh

halibut2209

Here's another slant on it.

What if you'd bought the original, then found out it was a print. Would you have the right to take it back? Of course you would, because the contract has not been fulfilled. It goes both ways.

paddyrg

Mistakes happen - you'd have been no wiser if you'd not called, and someone might lose their job over it. I'd take the print but let them show their gratitude with a freebie/extras/whatever, and everyone's happy.

barbiedoll

If it were me, I'd take it back and change it for the print. I would expect a new and undamaged frame though!

browneyedbazzi

halibut2209 wrote: »

Here's another slant on it.

What if you'd bought the original, then found out it was a print. Would you have the right to take it back? Of course you would, because the contract has not been fulfilled. It goes both ways.

Not quite.

In contract law terms what's happened is a common mistake as to quality - because both parties believed the subject matter of the contract was a print - so case law says the contract is valid (see Leaf v International Galleries concerning the sale of a painting both parties believed to be by Constable but later turned out not to be). If the dealer sued OP for return of the painting they would almost certainly lose as there is binding precedent with very similar facts.

If there had been some misrepresention or fraud involved (ie the dealer knew they were selling a print but claimed it was an original) then the wronged party would be entitled to rescission of the contract.

Morally, I would return the painting and accept a print in a new, undamaged frame, but legally OP doesn't have to.

frugal_mike

There is a slight difference between the OP's case and Leaf v International Galleries. In the latter there was only one painting. Both parties were mistaken about the painter, but there could be no mistake about what was being sold. The judge ruled that the painter was a condition that had been breached, but the buyer could not reject the painting because 'acceptance' had already happened.

However in OP's case there wasn't only a single painting. There was the original, and many prints. I don't know exactly what went on in the shop, but it's not impossible that a mistake was made and a print got switched for the original for example.

I don't know if that's enough to avoid the contract though. Interesting nonetheless.

bris

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Not quite.

In contract law terms what's happened is a common mistake as to quality - because both parties believed the subject matter of the contract was a print - so case law says the contract is valid (see Leaf v International Galleries concerning the sale of a painting both parties believed to be by Constable but later turned out not to be). If the dealer sued OP for return of the painting they would almost certainly lose as there is binding precedent with very similar facts.

If there had been some misrepresention or fraud involved (ie the dealer knew they were selling a print but claimed it was an original) then the wronged party would be entitled to rescission of the contract.

Morally, I would return the painting and accept a print in a new, undamaged frame, but legally OP doesn't have to.

You got this one round the wrong way, in this case both parties believed the contract was for the print not the original.


A mistake was made but the store would win as the original was never up for sale, the contract was for the print.

unholyangel

browneyedbazzi wrote: »

Not quite.

In contract law terms what's happened is a common mistake as to quality - because both parties believed the subject matter of the contract was a print - so case law says the contract is valid (see Leaf v International Galleries concerning the sale of a painting both parties believed to be by Constable but later turned out not to be). If the dealer sued OP for return of the painting they would almost certainly lose as there is binding precedent with very similar facts.

If there had been some misrepresention or fraud involved (ie the dealer knew they were selling a print but claimed it was an original) then the wronged party would be entitled to rescission of the contract.

Morally, I would return the painting and accept a print in a new, undamaged frame, but legally OP doesn't have to.

The case you've referenced isnt as clear as you think it is. For a start if the claim had been brought earlier, the claimant would have been able to rescind the contract on the basis of innocent misrepresentation.

Second...the subject matter of the contract was for specific painting and that is the painting that was supplied. The fact it turned out not to be by an artist they thought it was, doesnt change the fact that its still the same painting.

In this case, the subject matter of the contract is a print - and the business have mistakenly provided the original.

arcon5

Not much they can do if they don't have your details.

Legally - well that's not straight forward that would seem, for either party.

Morally - that's up for debate.

Although what people say they would do when not the subject is often very different to what they would actually do if it was them involved.