Work Of Art And Mistake On The Seller's Substance
LexInter | December 17, 2007 | 0 Comments

Work Of Art And Mistake On The Seller’s Substance


FRENCH REPUBLI
IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE
ON THE SINGLE SUBMISSION: IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 1110 OF THE CIVIL CODE;

WHEREAS THE SAINT-ARROMAN SPOUSES HAVE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, BY THE MINISTRY OF MM MAURICE RHEIMS, PHILIPPE RHEIMS AND RENE LAURIN, A PAINTING THAT THEIR FAMILY TRADITION GIVEN AS DUE TO THE BRUSH OF NICOLAS POTRIBUE OF ET QUREI ATI ATI ATI AT THE CARRACHE SCHOOL BY THE EXPERT ROBERT LEBEL TO WHOM THE SALES MARKERS WERE ADDRESSED, SO THAT HE WAS REGISTERED AS SUCH IN THE SALES CATALOG WITH THE ASSENT OF ITS OWNERS AND THAT HE HAS WAS ADJUSTED FOR 2200 FRANCS ON FEBRUARY 21, 1968;
THAT THE REUNION DES MUSEES NATIONAUX HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT OF PREEMPTION, THEN EXPOSED THE TABLE AS AN ORIGINAL WORK BY M POUSSIN;
THAT, THE SPOUSES SAINT-ARROMAN HAVING REQUESTED THE NULLITY OF THE SALE FOR ERROR ON THE SUBSTANTIAL QUALITY OF THE THING SOLD, THE COURT OF APPEAL, RULING ON DISMISSAL AFTER BREAKING A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT, REJECTED THIS REQUEST ON THE REASONS THAT, IF THE SAINT-ARROMAN SPOUSES “HAVE WELL, AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, THE CONVICTION () THAT THE DISPUTED PAINTING COULD NOT BE A WORK BY NICOLAS POUSSIN”, NOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF THIS PAINTING TO THE LOUVRE AS BEING BY M POUSSIN , BY DECREE OF MARCH 20, 1968, NEITHER THE ARTICLE BY M ROSENBERG IN THE REVUE DU LOUVRE, PUBLISHED IN 1969, NOR THE EXHIBITION OF THE WORK IN THE LOUVRE UNDER THE NAME OF CHICK “DOES NOT IMPLICATE AND CONTAIN IN FACT NO ELEMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE ORIGIN OF THEWORK WHICH PREVENTS THE SALE, OR CONCERNING, AND LIKELY AS SUCH TO INFLUENCE THE CONSENT OF THE SELLERS IF IT HAD BEEN KNOWN BY THEM OR THEIR AGENTS AT THAT TIME “;
THAT, IN THE SAME, THE MEETING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS HAVING OBSERVED FOR ITS DEFENSE ONLY, AND DESPITE ITS OWN BEHAVIOR AFTER THE ACQUISITION OF THE PAINTING, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WORK , THE COURT OF APPEAL DECLARED “THAT IT MATTERS () ONLY THE MEETING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS HAS MAINTAINED – OR SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED – ITS OPINION ON THE ALLOCATION OF THE AM POUSSIN TABLE, THE ERROR TO BE ASSESSED BY DAY OF SALE “;
WHEREAS BY STATUSING THUS, AND BY DENIING THE SAINT-ARROMAN SPOUSES OF THE RIGHT TO USE POST-SALES ASSESSMENT ELEMENTS TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ERROR ON THEIR PART AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, THE COURT Of
AND WHEREAS THE NECESSARY EXISTING DEPENDENCE BETWEEN THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE AND THAT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SALES AGENTS AND THE EXPERT TRAINED BY CONSEQUENCE, IN APPRECIATION OF ARTICLE 624 OF THE NEW CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, TERMINATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE ATTACKED JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEM;
FOR THESE REASONS: BREAKS AND ANNULS THE JUDGMENT RENDERED ON 1 FEBRUARY 1982, BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF AMIENS;
RESOLVES THE CASE AND THE PARTIES IN THE SAME AND SIMILAR STATE IN WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE THE JUDGMENT, AND TO BE ENFORCED, REFERS THEM BEFORE THE VERSAILLES COURT OF APPEAL, AS DESIGNATED BY SPECIAL DELIBERATION TAKEN IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER;

Publication: Bulletin of judgments Cour de Cassation Civil Chamber 1 N. 293
Gazette du Palais, March 22, 1984, n ° 81 82, note JB. Jurisclasseur Periodique 1984 N ° 20186, conclusions of the Advocate General GULPHE. Dalloz, June 21, 1984 p. 340, note Jean-Luc AUBERT. Directory of the Defrénois notary, November 15, 1984, p. 1316, note Jean-Luc AUBERT. Directory of the Defrénois notariat, 1985, p. 505, note Jean CHATELAIN.
Contested decision: Amiens Court of Appeal (Chambers combined) 1982-02-01
Precedents in case law:
CF. Court of Cassation (Civil Chamber 1) 1978-02-22 Bulletin 1978 I N. 74 P. 62 (CASSATION). CF. Court of Cassation (Civil Chamber 1) 1983-10-26 Bulletin 1983 I N. 249 (2) (CASSATION).

 

 

Court of Cassation
Civil Chamber 1

Public hearing of February 22, 1978 Cassation


Appeal number: 76-11551
Published in the

PDT bulletin M. Charliac
RPR M. Ancel
AV.GEN. M. Gulphe
Applicant AV. M. Delvolvé
AV Defender. MM. Lyon-Caen, Roques, Vidart

FRENCH REPUBLIC
 

IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

ON THE FIRST SUBMISSION: IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 1110 OF THE CIVIL CODE;
WHEREAS, THE SAINT-ARROMAN SPOUSES IN CHARGE OF RHEIMS, COMMISSIONER-TAKER, OF THE SALE OF A PAINTING ATTRIBUTED BY THE LEBEL EXPERT TO “L’ECOLE DES CARRACHE”, THE REUNION OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT OF PREEMPTION, THEN HAS PRESENTED THE PAINTING AS AN ORIGINAL WORK BY NICOLAS POUSSIN;
THAT THE SPOUSES SAINT-ARROMAN HAVING REQUESTED THE NULLITY OF THE SALE FOR ERROR ON THE SUBSTANTIAL QUALITY OF THE THING SOLD, THE COURT OF APPEAL, CONSIDERING THAT IT WAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE DISPUTE TABLE WAS AN AUTHENTIC WORK OF CHICK, AND THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, WITHDRAWN THE SPOUSES OF SAINT-ARROMAN FROM THEIR REQUEST;
THAT BY STATUSING THUS, WITHOUT SEARCHING IF, AT THE TIME OF THE SALE, THE CONSENT OF THE SELLERS HAD NOT BEEN VICTED BY THEIR ERRONEOUS CONVICTION THAT THE PAINTING COULD NOT BE A WORK OF NICOLAS POUSSIN, THE COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT HAS NOT GIVEN A LEGAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION;
FOR THESE REASONS, AND WITHOUT THERE IS NECESSARY TO DECIDE ON THE SECOND SUBMISSION: BREAKS AND ANNULS IN ITS ENTIRE JUDGMENT RENDERED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 2 FEBRUARY 1976 BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF PARIS;
RESOLVES, THEREFORE, THE CASE AND THE PARTIES TO THE SAME AND SIMILAR STATE IN WHICH THEY WERE BEFORE THE JUDGMENT AND, TO BE LEGAL, REFERS THEM BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL OF AMIENS.

 



Publication: Bulletin of judgments Cour de Cassation Civil Chamber 1 N. 74 P. 62
Contested decision: Court of Appeal Paris (Chamber 1) 1976-02-02

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.


CAPTCHA Image
Reload Image