AUCTION HOUSES AND DISPUTED OWNERSHIP: Jeddi v. Sotheby's.
| Author | Woodhouse, Holly |
The recent case of Jeddi v Sotheby's, (1) heard in the Commercial Court in London in May 2018, is a timely example of the way in which well-established precedents in the English courts can be applied to determine tenuous claims to title and how those in the art market, particularly auction houses holding valuable objects on behalf of another, may use interpleader proceedings to allow the court to determine competing ownership claims.
At the heart of the dispute were two competing claims, and wildly conflicting accounts, as to who owned a 12 million [pounds sterling] early Islamic rock crystal jar [the Jar]. Technical analysis suggested the Jar belonged to a rare group of surviving carved rock crystals from the Medieval Abbasid Dynasty (750 to 1258 AD), with a high likelihood that it hailed from what is now Iran. The Jar was described in Sotheby's marketing brochure as "the missing link between the two traditions of cut glass and carved rock crystal." (2)
The claim was brought by Mr Ali Saatsaz Jeddi, an Iranian antiquities dealer, against Sotheby's auction house in London for delivery up. Sotheby's then interpleaded Mr Ali Pishvaie, a collector originally from Iran as well, who had consigned the Jar to Sotheby's for sale, as a second defendant. Interpleading the consignor as a defendant in title disputes is a common mechanism used by auction houses to avoid the risk of returning property to the wrong person which would make the auction house liable in the tort of conversion.
In addition to the consideration of the principles relating to interpleader, the case also provides guidance on agency, bailment and the immediate right to possession, as well as offering a stark reminder as to the importance of documentary evidence in commercial arrangements. The Judge also confirmed what many in the industry already know in terms of provenance in relation to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property [the UNESCO Convention] of 1970. In recognition of the UNESCO Convention, many professional associations and institutions have adopted what might be termed 'the 1970 standard'. Archaeological and other cultural objects meet this standard if they are documented as having been removed from their country of origin either before 1970 or legally therafter. As such, the UNESCO Convention has reformed the antiquities market as higher prices are paid for objects with documented and reliable evidence showing the object was legally exported from its country of origin after 1970.
OWNERSHIP DISPUTE
The case is remarkable in that the respective accounts as to the ownership and provenance of the Jar were irreconcilable, compounded by a stark lack of documentary evidence.
Mr Jeddi asserted that he was the sole owner of the Jar, claiming to have purchased it in Dubai in 2010 for $150,000. According to Mr Jeddi's account, the Jar was purchased pursuant to an oral agreement, later evidenced by a bill of sale. Mr Jeddi claimed that in 2012 he had asked Mr Pishvaie to act as his agent and consign the Jar to Sotheby's in London for auction. This was evidenced by way of a...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
