Caravaggio In Court: Auction Houses, Duty Of Care And Breach Of Contract

In Thwaytes v Sotheby's [2015] EWHC 36 (Ch) the High Court found that Sotheby's had not been negligent in auctioning a painting as a copy, rather than as an original Caravaggio. Sotheby's was entitled to rely on its own expertise and connoisseurship, and to assess the painting first and foremost on its quality.

Background

The Claimant had owned a painting which was of the same scene as a painting by Caravaggio known as 'The Cardsharps'. In 2006 the Claimant instructed Sotheby's to examine the painting in order to determine whether the Claimant's painting was a copy, or whether it was an early work by Caravaggio himself.

Sotheby's experts examined the painting using ultra-violet light and x-ray imaging, and all agreed that it was a copy, probably by a follower of Caravaggio. The Claimant asked that the painting be auctioned by Sotheby's, where it sold at a hammer price of £42,000.

The buyer, a renowned art scholar and Caravaggio specialist, subsequently carried out his own tests and examinations. The following year the buyer announced that the painting was an original work by Caravaggio himself with an estimated value of £10 million.

The Claimant issued proceedings against Sotheby's in negligence and breach of contract.

The Dispute

The Claimant contended that Sotheby's:

i) had been wrong in its approach, namely to have assessed the painting solely in terms of its artistic quality;

ii) had failed to notice certain features of the painting which should have alerted them to the fact that it had potential to be a Caravaggio; and

iii) had been negligent in failing to inform the claimant of the high level of interest that had been shown in the painting prior to the auction.

The claimant alleged that if Sotheby's had performed its duties towards him properly, he could either have sold the painting for a much greater sum, or retained it himself at a much higher value than he had originally paid for it. The claimant further contended that the scope of Sotheby's duty of care was extended on the basis that the claimant had initially asked Sotheby's to research the painting. The claimant argued that this meant that Sotheby's was on special enquiry as to the quality and importance of the painting.

The claim was dismissed.

Duty of Care

The court held that the duty undertaken by Sotheby's when the painting was consigned to it was the duty that arose generally when an item was consigned to a leading international auction house. There were no special...