Protecting art authenticators in law
February 15 2016
Picture: widewalls.ch
There have been a number of attempts to change the law in New York state (home of much of the world's art market) to better protect art historians who give their views on authenticity. At the moment, many are afraid to express an opinion for fear of being sued by disgruntled owners, which is obviously not right. The Warhol Foundation's closure is the most famous example.
However, in a probing piece for ArtNet, the lawyer Judith Wallace of Carter, Ledyard & Milburn points out some of the key weaknesses of the current bill going through the New York legislature, the most interesting concerns the matter of warranties:
[...] the proposed amendments state that expert opinions do not give rise to a warranty—period. Thus, if a dealer sells a work, attributing it to a particular artist, based upon an expert's opinion, and three years later the work is discovered to be a fake, the purchaser will demand a refund from the dealer. But the proposed amendments seem to say (perhaps inadvertently) that the buyer would not have a warranty claim—against anyone—because the parties relied on an expert opinion. If that is not the intention of the proposed amendments, the proposal should be revised, and if it is the purpose, it needs to be disclosed and debated, because it is a significant change in the law.
One can imagine the delight in the Knoedler camp had the above formulation already passed into law.
