message from Romain SOMEONE IS SELLING MY ART ON CAF !!
3 3

101 posts in this topic

3,864 posts
On 5/25/2017 at 5:36 PM, comix4fun said:

When it comes to one of a kind works, like artwork, holding yourself out to be the owner of a piece that you don't own, or the authorized seller of a piece on behalf of the real owner when you are NOT authorized, is the fastest way to destroy your reputation. 

People are less likely to associate that type of behavior with the normal course of business as they are to someone trying to deceive them in the midst of a business deal. Omitting that you don't own, don't possess and aren't authorized by the owner to sell a piece is how most people define RED FLAGS! 

Tell that to Go-Go Larry Gagosian. It's exactly how he got his start in the art world some 40 years ago: walking transparencies around, gallery to gallery, offering private collection paintings he didn't own nor have permission to offer. My recollection (from one or the other of his bought/sold Warhol books) is Richard Polsky did essentially the same thing, borrowing transparencies from one gallery to offer to other galleries (at a markup or as part of interesting "trade" opportunities), without any formal agreement or even understanding with the first gallery. Hustle has a bad connotation but it does tend to pay off if it defines your work ethic. I agree it's not the way to build a good reputation referencing sound business practices and strong ethics...but #1 is still...#1.

This is not a particularly celebrated activity in fine art circles but I think it is accepted and understood to be part of the business of dealing out of one's apartment (the birthplace of many a eventual market-moving gallerist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,964 posts

It's certainly misleading to list art you don't actually own.

If flipping were illegal half the boards would be in prison. I think some people rightly have an issue with someone listing art for sale when the lister does not actually own said art or have some agreement granting permission from whomever does.

 

Re: grammar and punctuation - someone else said Visarspike likely speaks and English as a second language, if that's the case maybe cut them some slack on that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,864 posts
1 minute ago, SquareChaos said:

I think some people rightly have an issue with someone listing art for sale when the lister does not actually own said art or have some agreement granting permission from whomever does. 

Emphasis mine, above. I don't love it but up against the other foolishness we sometimes suffer in this hobby: aka anything the Donnelly's do, fakes and misrepresented lightbox jobs, empty packages, ever-upward BP creep at one certain House (why not go to 100% versus slow-boiling we frogs?), cripes like that...a little hustle doesn't rate mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,964 posts
1 minute ago, vodou said:

Emphasis mine, above. I don't love it but up against the other foolishness we sometimes suffer in this hobby: aka anything the Donnelly's do, fakes and misrepresented lightbox jobs, empty packages, ever-upward BP creep at one certain House (why not go to 100% versus slow-boiling we frogs?), cripes like that...a little hustle doesn't rate mention.

It is certainly subjective.

My thought writing that was mostly from the owner of said arts perspective - why wouldn't they have a right to be aggravated by the behavior? And in this particular instance, buyers of art from such an individual may also be annoyed once they find out they paid an unnecessary mark-up... But we all already accept caveat emptor so there is no need to discuss much further on that front... but again, many may not find it exactly ethical and people should understand that may be the case if they decide to go down that road. 

Our actions do, and should, have consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,238 posts
1 hour ago, glendgold said:

It is really weird to me that some folks are having to explain that selling art you don't actually own is wrong and other folks just don't see that as a problem. Holy cow.

Note the context. He had paid for it, even if he did not have it in his hands. Where it becomes “wrong” is if it is fraudulent—taking money with no intention of providing it to the buyer. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,739 posts
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Note the context. He had paid for it, even if he did not have it in his hands. Where it becomes “wrong” is if it is fraudulent—taking money with no intention of providing it to the buyer. 

 

 

Actually, that's HIS version of events. Not exactly pure context given that it directly contradicts the original posters assertions. 

Where it becomes "wrong" is in the OP's version of events.......the denial doesn't erase the original poster's allegation. 

On 5/25/2017 at 10:58 AM, lobrac said:

Now he ordered a splash ( MTU 136 title splash by Ron Frenz ) and paid for it today

But  I have been told by collector friends on CAF the art was already for sale on his CAF and comicartshop !!!
Now he has just posted 8 new pieces on his CAF including my biggest pieces like the Avengers Neal Adams 1/2 splash, Art Adams Xmen page, etc...all are coming ( stolen scans ) from lafrenchcollection.com
 

 

Couple of days ago he orders it on lafrenchcollection.com but in the same time a collector friend recognized the very same splash for sale on his comicartshop ( the CAF "shop" ) at $3000 !! it wasn't bought at the time as I didn't reply to him ..
 
Today ( 2 days later ) I received the 1800 euros payment in full with 30 euros add for shipping and in the same time the piece is removed from his comicartshop !!!
 

 

So...he paid for it AFTER it was listed for sale on his own site (it was paid for AFTER he sold it to someone else if you read closely), and had that piece and several other pieces from the same collection listed for sale before he ever made contact with the actual owner about them, that he didn't buy, didn't own, and didn't possess according to the OP.

 

Edited by comix4fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
73 posts
1 hour ago, comix4fun said:

Actually, that's HIS version of events. Not exactly pure context given that it directly contradicts the original posters assertions. 

Where it becomes "wrong" is in the OP's version of events.......the denial doesn't erase the original poster's allegation. 

 

So...he paid for it AFTER it was listed for sale on his own site (it was paid for AFTER he sold it to someone else if you read closely), and had that piece and several other pieces from the same collection listed for sale before he ever made contact with the actual owner about them, that he didn't buy, didn't own, and didn't possess according to the OP.

 

let me explain how it works in france....as romain said in his post, he received the payment 2 days after....shipping a check in france takes about 2-3 days, so whn i put the page for sale, the deal was already done, and the check sent so to me, it was mine (altough i didn't received it yet)

 

the buyer sure paid it more, but at 2500$ for a frenz spiderman splash, i think he did a good deal (when i saw it at 1800€, i knew it was a good deal).....and if you go that way, everyone who buys from romitaman, anthony snyder and so on also overpays as they would have bought it to the original owner for less

 

as for shipping, i always use airmail....when i say i'm not suprised, it's because it usually takes about 10-14 days, but it happens sometimes that it takes longer for whatever reason (often because it's been blocked at the customs, or it went first to the wrong city because the machine didn't scanned well the zip code, ...)....when i buy myself art from USA, i don't start panicking if a package is a bit late, i bought often, and sometimes, it took up to 3 months to arrive, so i wouldn't worry after just one month, i think everyone already experienced a late package

well, it was just to clarify the situation, and as i said, i've done deals with many people, and never had a problem (except for this 2017 thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,739 posts
Just now, visarspike said:

let me explain how it works in france....as romain said in his post, he received the payment 2 days after....shipping a check in france takes about 2-3 days, so whn i put the page for sale, the deal was already done, and the check sent so to me, it was mine (altough i didn't received it yet)

 

 

Actually the original poster stated that it was for sale on your site BEFORE he even responded to your email attempting to buy it and before an agreement to sell was made.

Is that incorrect? 

Here's the post

 

On 5/25/2017 at 10:58 AM, lobrac said:

 

Now he ordered a splash ( MTU 136 title splash by Ron Frenz ) and paid for it today
But  I have been told by collector friends on CAF the art was already for sale on his CAF and comicartshop !!!
Now he has just posted 8 new pieces on his CAF including my biggest pieces like the Avengers Neal Adams 1/2 splash, Art Adams Xmen page, etc...all are coming ( stolen scans ) from lafrenchcollection.com

 

also to clarify
 
Couple of days ago he orders it on lafrenchcollection.com but in the same time a collector friend recognized the very same splash for sale on his comicartshop ( the CAF "shop" ) at $3000 !! it wasn't bought at the time as I didn't reply to him ..

And regarding the section in bold above. He states you listed several pieces for sale on your site  that he actually owned and that you had not spoken to him about, ordered, or bought.

Is that incorrect?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,166 posts
Posted (edited)

I would add that you seem to understand sometimes mail takes time to reach the buyer, so why would you advertise a piece before it is in hand? Just wait until you own it AND have physical possession before listing it for sale.

I am interested in your answers to comix4fun's questions above as well, as you've certainly made my personal list here today unless you add some new info to the situation..

Edited by Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210 posts
3 hours ago, comix4fun said:

 

If the package had yet to be delivered, and you chose an extraordinarily slow shipping method given your lack of surprise of a month's delay in delivery, why would you think  you "Didn't need the tracking number anymore" ?

You forget he had to actually get the art before he could ship. This might account for 3 of those weeks :news:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,739 posts
Just now, Bird said:

I would add that you seem to understand sometimes mail takes time to reach the buyer, so why would you advertise a piece before it is in hand? Just wait until you own it AND have physical possession before listing it for sale.

I am interested in your answers to comix4fun's questions above as well, as you've certainly made my personal list here today unless you add some new info to the situation..

Good point. Anything can happen between payment and transit to possession. Given that the piece can be lost or damaged in transit it places potential buyers in jeopardy should the pay for something the seller never actually gets in their hands. 

Of course, there is the possibility that marketing it early (or REALLY early) helps the middle-man as they use the next buyer's money to pay the actually owner, as the OP seems to state here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,739 posts
Just now, mister_not_so_nice said:

You forget he had to actually get the art before he could ship. This might account for 3 of those weeks :news:

Point well made. The tracking information might reveal when it actually was shipped off. Interesting. "Losing" the tracking information avoids that question and any revelations that might come from it being answered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,238 posts

There seems to be two different issues which are mixed: bad behavior and unlawful behavior.

A contract is formed (in most cases) if there is an offer and an acceptance. Even if the buyer offered to buy but had not yet paid, or if the merchandise wasn’t shipped, will not change the fact that there is still a contract for sale. The buyer had the right to sell the right to the art created by the contract of sale.

Regarding what actually happened seems to be unclear or in dispute between people whose English is limited. But even if there were no contract formed, the question remains: what was the legal harm? If the seller received what he sought, and the buyer received what he sought, then the harm to the original seller is for failing to price the art high enough or in the right forums. That is not the buyer’s fault. 

In terms of bad business behavior, that’s a different issue as this thread exemplifies. No buyer (or seller) should rub the other party’s nose in his bad decision by doing what was done here. It gets them ostracised from their field. Better to pay, get the product, and wait a little while first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377 posts
30 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

There seems to be two different issues which are mixed: bad behavior and unlawful behavior.

A contract is formed (in most cases) if there is an offer and an acceptance. Even if the buyer offered to buy but had not yet paid, or if the merchandise wasn’t shipped, will not change the fact that there is still a contract for sale. The buyer had the right to sell the right to the art created by the contract of sale.

Regarding what actually happened seems to be unclear or in dispute between people whose English is limited. But even if there were no contract formed, the question remains: what was the legal harm? If the seller received what he sought, and the buyer received what he sought, then the harm to the original seller is for failing to price the art high enough or in the right forums. That is not the buyer’s fault. 

In terms of bad business behavior, that’s a different issue as this thread exemplifies. No buyer (or seller) should rub the other party’s nose in his bad decision by doing what was done here. It gets them ostracised from their field. Better to pay, get the product, and wait a little while first.

Well, if we’re playing LA Law or “let’s answer a law school exam” there are at least several other questions that should be considered. For example, I expect most written commercial sale contracts would have some type of good title rep. If a seller only has a contractual right to take title/possession can they actually make such rep at the time of entering into the latter sale agreement? Now, what about a case like our neck of the woods where the use of actual written contract is pretty rate; might there be an implied good title rep? 

Another question is whether the original owner or final buyer can make an unjust enrichment claim against the buyer turned seller.

Finally, we’re lucky that at least one of the parties involved is from a continental law country, because now all of the above questions should be answered again taking into account the the duty to perform contracts in good faith.

And I bet a diligent law student can spot a couple of additional issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42,739 posts
41 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

 

Regarding what actually happened seems to be unclear or in dispute between people whose English is limited. But even if there were no contract formed, the question remains: what was the legal harm? If the seller received what he sought, and the buyer received what he sought, then the harm to the original seller is for failing to price the art high enough or in the right forums. That is not the buyer’s fault. 

 

Holding oneself out as the owner of items one does not own and then attempting to entice or enter into a transaction or contract for sale with a buyer is de facto fraudulent behavior. 

The buyer holds himself out to be a buyer, ready, willing and able to purchase an item and that he has personal funds available to perform his portion of the transaction with.

The seller holds himself out to a seller, ready, willing and able to sell and item and that he actually owns and possesses said item and can deliver that item, which he owns, to the purchaser to perform his portion of the transaction. 

You cannot have a meeting of the minds, the most basic tenet of contract and transaction, if one party is entering into the contract or transaction deceiving the other as to their ability to perform, their ownership of the item in question, or their possession and ability to immediately perform their end of the deal. 

Some would consider it fraud in the inducement, where one party is deceived into dealing with a person they believed was the owner of the item they are attempting to purchase when in, fact, they were not the owner until after they consented to purchase or even after performing by providing payment. 

Regardless of damages, one cannot enter into an agreement or a transaction with another deceptively or withholding key information (such as you don't own or possess the item you are selling) and simultaneously believe there's no legal line that has been crossed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,238 posts
1 hour ago, rotembk said:

Well, if we’re playing LA Law or “let’s answer a law school exam” there are at least several other questions that should be considered. For example, I expect most written commercial sale contracts would have some type of good title rep. If a seller only has a contractual right to take title/possession can they actually make such rep at the time of entering into the latter sale agreement? Now, what about a case like our neck of the woods where the use of actual written contract is pretty rate; might there be an implied good title rep? 

Another question is whether the original owner or final buyer can make an unjust enrichment claim against the buyer turned seller.

Finally, we’re lucky that at least one of the parties involved is from a continental law country, because now all of the above questions should be answered again taking into account the the duty to perform contracts in good faith.

And I bet a diligent law student can spot a couple of additional issues.

This isn’t a law school exam: it’s a question of whether the buyer did anything wrong. Maybe not under the law, but definitely as a matter of market etiquette. That is the reason for my Contracts synopsis for non-lawyers.

If you want to play law school in your example: (1) there is no representation of ownership being made since there is no commercial contract containing a representation, and (2) unjust enrichment claims in most states require an expectancy by the person claiming unjust enrichment (the original seller in France) they they would be compensated by, in this case, the buyer from the buyer. No unjust enrichment claim here since the two never knew each other or communicated. “Good faith” as an enforceable implied contractual duty is legally irrelevant here—nothing suggests the sort of bad act triggering a breach of that duty (which is mostly used as a gap filler in written contracts anyway). But, there are conflict-of-laws questions, and a trivial copyright infringement claim. Anything else you want to try and impress me with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3