Art Purchase

JethroUK

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.

Quite right

I'm addition, you were totally AWARE the contract was for a print/copy irrespective of whether this was FORMALISED on your receipt or not

Of course you should try and keep it and they may just roll over but if it gets to court you will have to return it for the reasons mentioned

CJS123

Good morning all,

Thank you for your responses.

For point of clarity on some of the points raised above, the receipt does not confirm whether it is a print or not, it just says 'art work'. Regarding the price, the art did not have a price tag on it, when we asked the shop owner, they said '£150'.

Looks like legally we would have a case to keep it, however the morality of doing so is causing us issues. The art actually has the artists email address on the back, subsequently I am going to email him and ask him what he would do/can we come to an agreement etc. I should point out that the art is of the street we bought our first house in, so has sentimental value, and having gone on to his website, it looks like this piece has not been recreated in print format yet..... probably as we have the original!

Will update accordingly if anyone is interested.

Craig

browneyedbazzi

It sounds very much like a common mistake as to quality to me - I know others have disagreed but I'm not convinced by those arguments.

I do think it's the right thing to negotiate with them, I'd feel terribly guilty keeping it and knowing that it may be taken out of the employees pocket or cause hardship to the business.

frugal_mike

If no prints of the art have been made then there can have been no mistake by the shop. The details above show the shop intended to sell that specific painting for the price they asked for it (rather than a print being mistakenly switched for the real thing). The fact the shop mistakenly sold it for less than they could have doesn't give them the right to have the picture back.

wealdroam

frugal_mike wrote: »

If no prints of the art have been made then there can have been no mistake by the shop. The details above show the shop intended to sell that specific painting for the price they asked for it (rather than a print being mistakenly switched for the real thing). The fact the shop mistakenly sold it for less than they could have doesn't give them the right to have the picture back.

Absolutely right.

It seems quite clear to me.

The OP asked "how much for that?"

The seller replied "£150.00".

Money and goods were exchanged.

Deal done.



As an aside... how about coming to an arrangement with the artist to have prints made from your artwork?

artbaron

wealdroam wrote: »

Absolutely right.

It seems quite clear to me.

The OP asked "how much for that?"

The seller replied "£150.00".

Money and goods were exchanged.

Deal done.

If that's how it happened then the decision will come down to whether a reasonable person would expect to be able to own an original painting by artist X for the sum of £150. That I can't comment on, but it isn't as simple as "I bought it therefore it's mine."

frugal_mike

artbaron wrote: »

If that's how it happened then the decision will come down to whether a reasonable person would expect to be able to own an original painting by artist X for the sum of £150. That I can't comment on, but it isn't as simple as "I bought it therefore it's mine."

The law does not concern itself with whether a bargain is good or not. If the shop chose to sell the painting for £150 they can. Conversely if they chose to sell it for £1000000 and a customer agreed to pay it, the customer could not avoid the contract if they discovered similar paintings by the artist normally cost less.

artbaron

frugal_mike wrote: »

The law does not concern itself with whether a bargain is good or not. If the shop chose to sell the painting for £150 they can. Conversely if they chose to sell it for £1000000 and a customer agreed to pay it, the customer could not avoid the contract if they discovered similar paintings by the artist normally cost less.

Irrelevant. If there's a dispute then the law will not allow a party to benefit from a contractual mistake of fact if it can be proven they should reasonably have known it was a mistake.

wealdroam

artbaron wrote: »

If that's how it happened then the decision will come down to whether a reasonable person would expect to be able to own an original painting by artist X for the sum of £150. That I can't comment on, but it isn't as simple as "I bought it therefore it's mine."

Maybe... maybe not.

If the OP just happened to see this picture in a shop and recognised it as a scene he knew well, and decided he wanted to hang that on his wall, I could easily understand that to be the view of a reasonable person. That reasonable person may not even know the artist... just liked the picture and thought it worth the asking price.

Also, that reasonable person may not even have considered the artist... he just liked the picture and the subject matter.

artbaron

wealdroam wrote: »

Maybe... maybe not.

If the OP just happened to see this picture in a shop and recognised it as a scene he knew well, and decided he wanted to hang that on his wall, I could easily understand that to be the view of a reasonable person. That reasonable person may not even know the artist... just liked the picture and thought it worth the asking price.

Also, that reasonable person may not even have considered the artist... he just liked the picture and the subject matter.

The test would normally be applied with hindsight, so whilst it's possible they didn't see an issue at the time the question is whether now, in full possession of the facts, a reasonable person would consider the transaction to be within the bounds of the contract. It is subjective and it's possible that a court would find in favour of the OP, depending on a number of factors (e.g. is the price discrepancy really of significance - maybe the artist has other originals on sale for £300 suggesting £1500 is a huge over-valuation), but that would tend to be an exception when considering situations of this type.