Rick2you2 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 On 1/14/2024 at 2:51 PM, Bronty said: That’s good information but I was just responding to the idea that “well he can afford a lawyer so he should just draw it up to his advantage, which is ridiculous on its face. It also doesn’t really answer the question of whether or not Bouvier was in fact an agent here. That’s for a jury/fact-finder. We don’t have enough facts. Probably, the most important factor is whether he thought he was buying a product, or buying assistance in locating a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kripsys99 Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 Seems to me like Rybolovlev obtained his wealth through timing, daring, and ruthlessness - not wits. Bouvier is definitely shady, but seemingly exemplifies all of the qualities Rybolovlev utilized to obtain his fortune...plus those wits Rybolovlev is lacking. I don't feel in the least bit sorry for either of them. They're both pure profiteers. "A fool (or in this case fools) and his money are soon parted" and all that. I second the earlier recommendation of the documentary "The Lost Leonardo". Riveting stuff, with some not so subtle (though clearly more lucrative) similarities to the comic collecting world! John E. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/14/2024 at 2:51 PM, Bronty said: That’s good information but I was just responding to the idea that “well he can afford a lawyer so he should just draw it up to his advantage, which is ridiculous on its face. It's only ridiculous to people who do not know how contracts work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/8/2024 at 6:34 PM, Rick2you2 said: Bouvier, who last month settled his own legal dispute with Rybolovlev in Swiss court, has maintained that he did nothing wrong. His spokesman said Bouvier signed no contract with the collector and so was free to act in his own best interests as a private dealer and could charge Rybolovlev whatever he deemed appropriate for the art he resold. Bouvier won’t attend the coming trial, though he did provide a sworn deposition, the spokesman said." I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) On 1/17/2024 at 9:35 AM, PhilipB2k17 said: It's only ridiculous to people who do not know how contracts work. I can afford a lawyer. Should I unilaterally draw up a contract requiring you to dance naked in Times Square? That's what you said isn't it? That the Russian is a billionaire and can afford a lawyer, so he should draw one up to his liking. As though the other party (also a billionaire..) has no say in the matter? Edited January 17 by Bronty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) On 1/17/2024 at 9:56 AM, Bronty said: I can afford a lawyer. Should I unilaterally draw up a contract requiring you to dance naked in Times Square? If you paid me several million dollars consideration to do it, I might agree to the contract. As would Bouvier. That's my point. Your pedantic nonsense about how it requires two people to enter into a contract, isn't even worthy of a cheap law school exam question. The Billionaire has enough money to convince a greedy art dealer to act as his agent/fiduciary in procuring art for him. The contract would not have been to jump into a vat of acid or roll around in a pile of razor blades. If the dealer then acts in a self-interested manner, it's a lot easier to sue him. Edited January 17 by PhilipB2k17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/17/2024 at 10:05 AM, PhilipB2k17 said: If you paid me several million dollars consideration to do it, I might agree to the contract. As would Bouvier. That's my point. The Billionaire has enough money to convince a greedy art dealer to act as his agent/fiduciary in procuring art for him. The contract would not have been to jump into a vat of acid or roll around in a pile of razor blades. If the dealer then acts in a self-interested manner, it's a lot easier to sue him. Well then we are talking past each other. Of course it was ADVISABLE to have a contract, but that doesn't answer the question of whether one ACTUALLY EXISTED. Per your earlier quote, it seems there was no contract actually in place, so the horse has left the barn on the advisability of a contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/17/2024 at 10:06 AM, Bronty said: Well then we are talking past each other. Of course it was ADVISABLE to have a contract, but that doesn't answer the question of whether one ACTUALLY EXISTED. Per your earlier quote, it seems there was no contract actually in place, so the horse has left the barn on the advisability of a contract. I never said a contract existed. So, I'm not sure what you are talking about. But there are ways that a contract can be implied, or where you have induced someone to act in reliance upon your assurances, that don't require a per se contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 I didn't speak to whether it was express or implied. At the end of the day, I imagine a lot of these transactions rely on trust and confidence between the parties, no different than our corner of the hobby world. If you are transacting privately for large amounts, you have to be able to trust the other person. I've dealt for what are very significant sums to me without a contract - essentially on the basis of trust. I would suggest many people have dealt privately in art at sums that really probably DO warrant contracts, without one. I don't imagine its much different here. Yeah, you can ask for a contract, but it does change the relationship. Both in good ways (easier to sue) and in other ways that maybe aren't so great (I might not get the art I want). If I'm an art collecting junkie and I am lusting after material a dealer holds, I don't necessarily have the leverage to start making demands. Forget the sums being nine or ten figures and imagine that you are dying for Romita Spideys. Can you make Burkey subject to a contract, express or implied? He's just as likely to tell the collector to get stuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/17/2024 at 10:20 AM, Bronty said: I didn't speak to whether it was express or implied. At the end of the day, I imagine a lot of these transactions rely on trust and confidence between the parties, no different than our corner of the hobby world. If you are transacting privately for large amounts, you have to be able to trust the other person. I've dealt for what are very significant sums to me without a contract - essentially on the basis of trust. I would suggest many people have dealt privately in art at sums that really probably DO warrant contracts, without one. I don't imagine its much different here. Yeah, you can ask for a contract, but it does change the relationship. Both in good ways (easier to sue) and in other ways that maybe aren't so great (I might not get the art I want). If I'm an art collecting junkie and I am lusting after material a dealer holds, I don't necessarily have the leverage to start making demands. Forget the sums being nine or ten figures and imagine that you are dying for Romita Spideys. Can you make Burkey subject to a contract, express or implied? He's just as likely to tell the collector to get stuffed. I don't doubt people have transacted art deals for large sums. But I suspect most of these were done in person where you can execute the exchange or buying directly from an artist or dealer. That's not counting auction sales. Of course, it comes down to trust, but for big purchases you should get legal protection if reasonably possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilipB2k17 Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/17/2024 at 10:20 AM, Bronty said: . If I'm an art collecting junkie and I am lusting after material a dealer holds, I don't necessarily have the leverage to start making demands. Forget the sums being nine or ten figures and imagine that you are dying for Romita Spideys. Can you make Burkey subject to a contract, express or implied? He's just as likely to tell the collector to get stuffed. There's an implied contract when you purchase from a dealer. You are paying them their asking price for what is represented. If they don't deliver it to you, or the art isn't what they represented it to be, you have recourse to take legal action. They are holding themselves out as merchants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) Ehh, I'm putting a fork in this. Deleted. Edited January 17 by Bronty The Voord and vodou 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vodou Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 Yes, it becomes exasperatedly very quickly 😘 The Voord 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronty Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 On 1/17/2024 at 10:05 AM, PhilipB2k17 said: The Billionaire has enough money to convince a greedy art dealer to act as his agent/fiduciary in procuring art for him. You keep going back to this idea that the guy has money, so its just a done deal that he can convince a dealer to act as fiduciary. Let's say that's the case. It may not be in Bouvier's best interest to agree to that. Only a sucker is going to make 10% as an agent if he can instead make 50% as a dealer. IMO, you assume way too much about who does or doesn't have leverage here. We don't know. I imagine Bouvier is not poor, not dumb, and has dealt with many strong personalities and strongarm tactics in the past. Yet he's weathered those storms and risen to the top no? To deal at that level, he's no rube, and forcing him into a corner he doesn't necessarily want to be in cannot be assumed. And now, the fork! Its done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThothAmon Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/arts/sothebys-art-fraud-trial.html Nada nyet bubkus. Edited February 3 by ThothAmon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick2you2 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 On 2/3/2024 at 5:13 PM, ThothAmon said: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/30/arts/sothebys-art-fraud-trial.html Nada nyet bubkus. I read a few write-ups about this, and there was a lot more going on here. First, the buyer and his representative had reached a settlement previously, leaving only Sotheby’s as a defendant. Second, the “agent” was apparently getting paid 2% by the billionaire for what he found. In this country, selling a piece and getting a commission for finding it would sound like a violation of an agent’s duties to its principal not to engage in self-dealing. It also says something about a poorly designed contract for remuneration of the procurer who had a positive incentive to cheat. So, while Sotheby’s may not have been proven guilty (as compared to what Sotheby’s may have done), the liability of the procurer sounds pretty obvious—at least if US law were applied. Bronty 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
