France: The Poussin Saga
| Published date | 01 February 1995 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025688 |
| Date | 01 February 1995 |
| Pages | 108-109 |
| Author | David Peacock |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Crime — Vol. 3 No. 1 — International
France: The Poussin Saga
David Peacock
Problems to do with the authenticity or otherwise
of works of art arise in all jurisdictions and it is
normally the purchaser who cries foul when seek-
ing to escape a bad, or even (see elsewhere in this
journal) fraudulent bargain. Here we look at how
the relevant provision of the French Civil Code
worked to the advantage of the seller of
a
painting,
a Poussin, and sec the workings and delays of the
French judicial system in operation: though there
is no suggestion of fraud ('dol') made, the Court
of Appeal of Versailles, which finally decided the
case,
was not fooled by pleadings made that
seemed of doubtful trustworthiness.
First, the main outlines: the Saint-Arroman fam-
ily owned a painting and had done so for
generations; a family tradition ascribed it to Pous-
sin but when they decided to sell it the
auctioneers' valuation expert said it was the work
of
a
minor school and worth just FF1,500. At auc-
tion in 1968 it was knocked down to a dealer for
FF2,200 but the national museums immediately
exercised their legal right of pre-emption and in
1969 it was exhibited in the Louvre as a Poussin.
The original sellers became convinced they were
the victims of a mistake and sought to have the
sale set aside because of error concerning the sub-
stance of the contract. The Tribunal de grande
instance de Paris found in their favour in 1972 but
the litigation was to continue for another 15 years.
The Paris Court of Appeal reversed the original
judgment only to have its own decison quashed by
the Court of Cassation which remitted the case to
the Amiens Court of Appeal, which also found
against the sellers and also saw its decision
quashed: in 1987 the Versailles Court of Appeal
upheld the decision of the first instance court and
annulled the sale. The Louvre returned the picture
to Mme Saint-Arroman (by now a widow) who
paid back the FF2,200. On 14th December, 1988
she had the painting auctioned again and it was
bought by a Swiss gallery for FF7.4m.1
The relevant provision of the French Civil Code
in this case is Article 1110, the first limb of which
states that a contract may only be avoided for mis-
take if that mistake concerns the essential quality
or 'substance' of the thing the contract is about.
The Court of First Instance decided in the sellers'
favour on the ground that there had not been
agreement between the contracting parties on the
thing sold, the sellers believing they were dispos-
ing of a painting of the Carrache school whereas
the pre-emptor believed it had acquired a work of
Poussin such that the mistake of the former, fully
known to the latter, had vitiated their consent.
In the Court of Cassation, on 13th December,
1983,
the Avocat-Général, M Gulphe, pointed out
in his submission how unusual this jurisprudence
was as it applied Article 1110 in favour of a seller
Page 108
To continue reading
Request your trial