Fine art buyers ready to sue if their Monet is really a Manet

ROCKETING fine art prices are increasingly putting auction houses in the frame for litigation if they incorrectly identify the provenance of a multimilliondollar work.

International specialist lawyers blame an evolving art market for a gradual rise in expensive disputes over the authenticity of art purportedly created by renowned artists.

What was once a field dominated by established and knowledgeable collectors has been overrun by wealthy arrivistes, who treat art as a commercial investment on a par with other valuable commodities.

There has also been a change of emphasis, with specific names – Picasso, Bacon and Warhol, among others – attracting stratospheric sale prices.

Historically, collectors were more interested in genres or schools than specific artists – so while paintings from the Impressionist school would have commanded relatively large bids, the difference between, say, a Renoir and a Degas would be slight.

If an auction house slipped up and sold a Monet as a Manet, the price differential would not be large enough to trigger a lawsuit for compensation. Flog a painting today as a Warhol, and it turns out to be the creation of a lesser pop artist, and you’ll hear from lawyers.

‘‘Art is seen as the new luxury investment, so the market is much more commercial,’’ says barrister Jordan Holland. ‘‘Prices have increased dramatically – so now it is worth suing if something goes wrong.

‘‘Auction houses do the greatest amount of selling, so they are very much under the microscope.’’

Earlier this year, Sotheby’s wriggled off the hook when a High Court judge found that it was not negligent, having consulted sufficiently ‘‘highly qualified’’ experts who had reasonably come to the view that a follower of Caravaggio, rather than the artist himself, painted The Cardsharps. However, a year after the painting was sold, on Sotheby’s advice, for £42,000, the new owner, a renowned Caravaggio scholar, announced that it was a Caravaggio – worth £10 million.

‘‘There is not that much litigation in terms of cases, no more than five or so within the last five years,’’ says Sophie Vigneron, a senior lecturer at Kent Law School.

‘‘But

what

cases

are

coming through millions.’’

Lawyer Karen Sanig agrees that inflated prices for fine art – and greater access to information – are giving auction houses pause for thought.

Auction house terms and conditions of sale have been considerably beefed up in a bid to avoid litigation. Terms of sale now routinely include authenticity guarantees, meaning that buyers can claim their money back if a piece turns out not to be what the auction house claimed.

The other area occupying specialist art lawyers revolves around a piece of legislation designed

are

valued

in

the to prevent art looted during World War II being held by British museums and public galleries.

Two cases determined last month under the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 produced opposite results. The panel that hears looted art cases recommended the Tate return a Constable seascape to the heirs of a Hungarian aristocrat – then ruled that the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery could retain a Renoir.

The latter had been claimed by the heirs of a German-Jewish couple, but the panel ruled that the painting had been sold to settle debts before the Nazis came to power.