Fine Art "investment" mistake

Malthusian

Reaper said:

If it's the latter I suggest insisting you take physical possession of the pictures so you can see what you have and attempt to sell them yourself. Saying you will collect them would be better than depending on vague promises of delivery.

That does however come close to forfeiting the slim chance of actually getting the money back via terrier tactics. If the OP's dad accepts some worthless doodles he's got what he's paid for.

In fact I can't see how accepting some near-worthless art is a better option than simply writing the money off. He might get something that he could sell for a few hundred quid but it doesn't seem worth the hassle.

If I had to guess I would guess the scammer has attempted to cover himself by buying actual pictures from unknown artists.

I agree. It takes less effort to buy some artworks at a local market or an exhibition by some rich dilettante than it does to invent the existence of artwork.

Rob_S

He does have receipts for works of art by known artists, including Salvador Dali, and others on their "established artists" page
(cannot post a link, but www thelondonartsociety com/established).

If this art does not exist, or is not by the artist stated, then does he not have a case under Section 75?

Rob_S

Unsurprisingly, the "head of portfolios" did not follow through on his promise to phone my father this morning with an update on his attempted sale, and is now unavailable. I think we need to report to ActionFraud. If nothing else, it might help reduce the number of people caught by this scam in the future.

eskbanker

Rob_S said:

He does have receipts for works of art by known artists, including Salvador Dali, and others on their "established artists" page
(cannot post a link, but www thelondonartsociety com/established).

If this art does not exist, or is not by the artist stated, then does he not have a case under Section 75?

But, at the risk of labouring the point, he'd need to prove that it doesn't exist or that it's fake, or that he doesn't actually own it, and that would effectively involve attempting to take physical possession - I don't know exactly how the art world works but imagine that it's simple (for those minded to defraud) to issue multiple receipts or certificates of ownership for each work to numerous punters, but conversely tricky for any of those individual victims to prove what's happened, so merely viewing the pieces wouldn't be enough.

Rob_S

eskbanker said:

But, at the risk of labouring the point, he'd need to prove that it doesn't exist or that it's fake, or that he doesn't actually own it, and that would effectively involve attempting to take physical possession - I don't know exactly how the art world works but imagine that it's simple (for those minded to defraud) to issue multiple receipts or certificates of ownership for each work to numerous punters, but conversely tricky for any of those individual victims to prove what's happened, so merely viewing the pieces wouldn't be enough.

If he asks to take possession, and the company does not comply, is that not enough? And once in his possession, he can presumably get it valued/authenticated independently. I know nothing about the art world either, but failure to produce the art would surely count as a breach of contract.

Rob_S

Malthusian said:

If I had to guess I would guess the scammer has attempted to cover himself by buying actual pictures from unknown artists.

I agree. It takes less effort to buy some artworks at a local market or an exhibition by some rich dilettante than it does to invent the existence of artwork.

As mentioned, the receipts he has are for known artists. Whether or not the pieces are real, or worth anything, I've no idea.

eskbanker

Rob_S said:

eskbanker said:

But, at the risk of labouring the point, he'd need to prove that it doesn't exist or that it's fake, or that he doesn't actually own it, and that would effectively involve attempting to take physical possession - I don't know exactly how the art world works but imagine that it's simple (for those minded to defraud) to issue multiple receipts or certificates of ownership for each work to numerous punters, but conversely tricky for any of those individual victims to prove what's happened, so merely viewing the pieces wouldn't be enough.

If he asks to take possession, and the company does not comply, is that not enough? And once in his possession, he can presumably get it valued/authenticated independently. I know nothing about the art world either, but failure to produce the art would surely count as a breach of contract.

I suspect that they'll have one or more plausible (to him) answers ready as to why they wouldn't be willing to release the works to him but again, to demonstrate breach of contract, he'd need to show that his contract with them entitles him to take physical possession.

badger09

OP really sorry to hear your father has been taken in by this. 

Idle musing on my part, but have you tried to research either the artworks for which your father has receipts, or the people involved in this scamheme? Some of us quite enjoy a bit of research on a boring Wednesday afternoon. 

Rob_S

Thankyou @badger09. Aretnap posted a link to the company in question (I'm too new to post links). I'm unable to find anything else about them online. Their company house reference (posted above by isChris85) gives their registered office in Brixton. However, that address is now a flower shop. Their website says their address is now Inwood House, Elliott’s Place.

As to the artworks on receipts, there are a couple of Salvador Dali bas reliefs: Lincoln On Dalivision (sic) and Don Quixote. Each was a limited edition of 175, and seem to sell for £2k-£4k - considerably less than the £15k each he was persuaded to pay for them.

He also has several untitled works by various artists. It's impossible to say which untitled work he has, but it's safe to say he's paid well over the odds for them.

Rob_S

So, my best guess now is that the artworks he has bought are genuine and exist, but that he's been charged 5x the price for each of them. Also, assuming the company is not fly-by-night (i.e. can be found to make a claim against). Then what are his options?

I have about as much legal experience as I have art experience. Are there any grounds for cancelling some or all of these purchases? Given the disparity between what he has paid, and what the art (in particular, the Dali limited editions) sells for, is this not fraud?