Good Faith is of upmost importance in many areas of the legal field, and Art Law is certainly no exception. Good faith, in essential, states that a buyer, contractor, etc. in their dealings with another, did not have any knowledge that the object at the center of their dealings actually belonged to someone else, nor should they have known. Good faith comes up often in the Art Law realm due to the number of stolen paintings and cultural goods that rotate through the market, which is why an artist, collector, curator etc. must do their due diligence to make sure they are in good faith when they deal with others in the art market.
Such is the case of Rue Saint-Honoré, dans l’après-midi, a painting by renowned artist Camille Pissarro that the lower court deemed as stolen due to a 1939 sale being termed a “forcible taking.”
Backstory: The painting, of a street scene in Paris, was owned by Lilly Cassirer, a German Jew, in 1939. That same year, in order to leave Germany and flee German forces, Cassirer was forced to sell the painting for $360. It as this selling that the court deemed to be a forcible taking. The painting was then sold at a Nazi-government sponsored auction and passed through several hands before being purchased in the 1970’s by Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza. In the 90’s it was once again sold, this time to a museum in Spain to be exhibited to the public. Regardless of the deeming of the 1939 selling as illegal the Court still awarded ownership to the museum by finding that the museum was the right full owner, dismissed.
But all hope is not lost for the plaintiffs, David and Ava Cassirer the great-grandchildren of the artist. Because the painting was located in Spain and was purchased by the Spanish government a significant contacts test lead the appellate court to determine that Spanish law would be applied in the case, selling the conflicts of law issue in the case. Under the Spanish law if Thyssen-Bornemisza was aware that the painting was stolen when acquired in 1993, Thyssen-Bornemisza could very well be an accomplice to theft. Which is why the appellate court is now giving the Plaintiff’s the chance to defeat the defendant’s assertion of good faith.
The plaintiffs offer several pieces of evidence to dispute the defendant’s assertion of good faith:
- the paintings were strongly favored by Jewish art collectors and curators
- Jewish art collectors tend to favor Nazi looted art
- paintings the Jewish artist in Europe during this time period were commonly looted by Nazis
- the provenance of the painting was incomplete
- at the time the museum purchased the Paris-inspired painting public records were available that identified the owner as Cassirer’s great-grandmother, the artist of the work
- only $275,000 was paid for the piece, half of its value at the time. Knowledge of a below-market price can be strong evidence against a good faith assertion.
For now we will have to wait to see how the court decides the latest issue in this saga. But for now, how do you be positive you are in good faith when purchasing a piece of art?Several databases can be used to assure collectors that their collections are legal, some are:
The Curator 