Significant Comic Art Auction at Profiles in History 30 July 2016

[suspense39]

I'm all for artists making money, and I'm sure it's difficult to see something go for 10,100 even a thousand percent of what they sold it for, but I think it works better as a straight auction sale due to the potentiality of a downside. Nothing stays up forever, and I'm sure the artist don't want to share in the loss side of things, also a very high price at auction generally means all future works that the artists sells can be sold for a higher price and that's where they can see a reward. Just a thought I'm throwing out there, there are so many angles to look at this from.....many scenarios.

[Mmehdy]

Hi!

 

The 'TAR" (Transfer of Artist's Rights) BWS agreement works as follows:

 

If you buy the piece, you sign the agreement which outlines certain responsibilites that are largely common sense (protect the art, for one; If the piece needs restoration in the future, consult with the artist is another).

 

Financially, the buyer agrees to pay BWS 15% of any profit, should the buyer sell the piece at a later date.

 

So if you buy piece A for $10,000 today, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you keep piece A forever, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $10,000 or less, no TAR payment is due.

 

If you sell the piece for $11,000, 15% of the $1000 profit is $150. So the buyer would pay BWS $150.

 

(I can hear it being asked, so no, if the buyer sells at a loss, BWS doesn't reimburse 15% of the loss.)

 

So, no need to calculate anything 'extra' when bidding on a BWS TAR attached lot.

 

Also, no tax if Profiles ships out of (Ca.) state. 20% buyer's premium if you bid on the phone.

 

 

There still is a shipping cost that is added on to the final sale price and that gets padded all the time...so the TAR covers the gross sales price....meaning that the seller has to pay the 15% on money he never receives after paying ha.com 20%...therefor meaning the TAR is 15% of the additional 20% BP which adds up to a total actual TAR of 18% of the final sales price...what a bunch of BS. Just might as well say 18%...or 16.5% if the auction house changes only 10%..I am out as a buyer on that.

[artcollector9]

Good points. I think when the TAR was first conceived, auction sales and the associated costs involved weren't considered? They certainly weren't addressed.

 

I imagine what was thought of was a straight sale between collectors--

 

I paid $5,000, I sold to Frank for $7,000, I made $2,000, I gave Barry $300.

 

Frank paid $7,000. His cost was $7,000. Straightforward.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vodou]

Good points. I think when the TAR was first conceived, auction sales and the associated costs involved weren't considered? They certainly weren't addressed.

 

I imagine what was thought of was a straight sale between collectors--

 

I paid $5,000, I sold to Frank for $7,000, I made $2,000, I gave Barry $300.

 

Frank paid $7,000. His cost was $7,000. Straightforward.

 

Uh huh. And framed it for $500 (protecting it from overall physical and uv damage) and carried insurance on it for five years amounting to another $250. No BWS exemption or cost sharing being done there either. Because otherwise...BWS would be the one protecting and insuring it, along with not having an interest free use of the original sale price money until the profitable re-sale occurs.

 

Lots easier to just go into this, assuming there's a piece you really want, bidding to win and assuming you will hang onto it so long none of this matters or you're coughing up probably 20% net final of resale back to Barry. I mean -it's not that big a deal, is it? Just know that going in, like when we all bid at HA taking the 20% juice into account.

[Bronty]

It would be a race as to whether we laughed them out of the courtroom over that point, or if they laughed us out of the courtroom over the "lack of privity".

 

I wouldn't want to work on this case on a contingent fee, I'll tell you that much.

 

Jay/Chris: "This TAR isn't worth the paper it's printed on! None of these terms are adequately defined! Reasonable people can interpret this language in any number of different ways!"

 

BWS: "Hey guys - here's a $100K retainer and all the missing pages from "Red Nails". Congrats, you're both my new lawyers."

 

Jay/Chris: "Why, this language couldn't be any clearer if it was written in stone with the Ten Commandments! A five-year old couldn't not understand the crystal-clear definitions of these terms!"

 

[Bronty]

I guess I'm missing something here. But, I can't figure out why anyone would even remotely consider buying a piece of comic art from a dealer, auction house or artist that required you to enter into a 'TAR' agreement. It would take away my enjoyment of the piece to know that I now 'owned' it with an artist and his team of lawyers. Whether it holds up in court at a later date or not, why even go down that road. Lots of art out there folks. This one is a NO brainer. Pass!

 

Absolutely

[Mmehdy]

 

 

TAR is a good way to keep prices down for the seller and the auction house...what a joke

[mtlevy]

If it keeps the price down that is perhaps not all bad, is it?

[Bronty]

If you allow this where does it stop? I'd personally never support this kind of transaction. If the artist wants to participate in his own market all he has to do is resist temptation and not sell every single original.

[zhamlau]

What if you trade this piece? How would the TAR be effected or recalculated?

[tth2]

I guess I'm missing something here. But, I can't figure out why anyone would even remotely consider buying a piece of comic art from a dealer, auction house or artist that required you to enter into a 'TAR' agreement. It would take away my enjoyment of the piece to know that I now 'owned' it with an artist and his team of lawyers. Whether it holds up in court at a later date or not, why even go down that road. Lots of art out there folks. This one is a NO brainer. Pass!

I hope this contractual requirement scares away bidders and suppresses interest in these pieces.

 

I`d then like to see how well BWS enforces the contract against some offshore buyer in say, China, who has no assets or presence in the US or the UK. I`d love to see BWS`s lawyers march into a court in Guangzhou to enforce a default judgment obtained in whatever jurisdiction was mandated by the contract.

[tth2]

It would be a race as to whether we laughed them out of the courtroom over that point, or if they laughed us out of the courtroom over the "lack of privity".

 

I wouldn't want to work on this case on a contingent fee, I'll tell you that much.

 

Jay/Chris: "This TAR isn't worth the paper it's printed on! None of these terms are adequately defined! Reasonable people can interpret this language in any number of different ways!"

 

BWS: "Hey guys - here's a $100K retainer and all the missing pages from "Red Nails". Congrats, you're both my new lawyers."

 

Jay/Chris: "Why, this language couldn't be any clearer if it was written in stone with the Ten Commandments! A five-year old couldn't not understand this crystal-clear definition of these terms!"

 

 

As long as he doesn't say "Here's $100k and the missing pages from Red Nails AS LONG AS YOU WIN." then we're in business.

As an experienced contracts lawyer, I think the contract is exceedingly airtight and enforceable, and bulldog lawyers like Chris or Jay would successfully make any buyer`s life a living hell. Therefore, every potential bidder should stay the hell away from these pieces.

[tth2]

What if you trade this piece? How would the TAR be effected or recalculated?

That`s why there`s a FMV clause.

[delekkerste]

As an experienced contracts lawyer, I think the contract is exceedingly airtight and enforceable, and bulldog lawyers like Chris or Jay would successfully make any buyer`s life a living hell. Therefore, every potential bidder should stay the hell away from these pieces.

 

Do you just want to see these pieces crash and burn (and, if so, is it because you're put off by the TAR), or are you seriously considering buying any of the BWS art affected by the TAR and want to get the lowest price possible? I wouldn't have thought that any of the BWS pieces on offer would be even remotely in your wheelhouse.

[comix4fun]

What if you trade this piece? How would the TAR be effected or recalculated?

That`s why there`s a FMV clause.

 

 

I know you love how detailed their criteria are for determining FMV are.

[westform]

If you allow this where does it stop? I'd personally never support this kind of transaction. If the artist wants to participate in his own market all he has to do is resist temptation and not sell every single original.

 

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

[Claudio]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

[comix4fun]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

 

[buyatari]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

 

It would have to be a really special piece for me to even consider it under these terms. Not just for the 15% but for the requirement of bringing the next guy in. I wouldn't want to deal with that.

 

Is there anything stopping another person from creating such a contract or do you have to be the artist? You could create a 5% piggyback contact on top of TAR to recoup your 15% for example.

Why stop there? Dealers could do this with all the pieces they sell.

[tth2]

I'm not a huge fan of BWS or this TAR. However, if I signed my name to a TAR agreement, I would honor it whether it was enforceable or not.

 

 

Agreed. I'd rather pass on a piece rather than intentionally violate an agreement.

 

Pshaw. Literally the first thing we learned in Contracts was that there is nothing unethical about breaching a contract. It is purely an economic decision that is made based on the consequences of breaching (which would include an analysis of the enforceability of the provisions being breached).