The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which has been adopted in some form by every state in the United States, is a collection of laws governing commercial transactions in the country. Sales of tangible personal property, such as fine art, are governed by article 2 of the UCC. Section 2-401(2) of the UCC provides that title to artwork will generally pass from the seller to the buyer upon the physical delivery of an artwork. The parties may seek to circumvent this by agreeing that title will not pass until receipt of payment. The majority view, however, is that after physical delivery of the work, the seller will be left with a security interest in the work, but not title to it.
According to section 2-312(1) of the UCC, unless excluded or modified by specific language or circumstances, a contract for the sale of an artwork will include a warranty by the seller that ‘the title conveyed shall be good, and its transfer rightful; and the goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.’ This warranty may be limited with specific language or circumstances that give the buyer reason to know that the seller does not claim title in him or herself, or that the seller is purporting to sell only such right or title as the seller or a third person may have.
Where the seller is a merchant, the UCC also provides the buyer with an implied warranty that ‘the goods shall be delivered free of the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like’. Pursuant to the UCC, a merchant is ‘a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction’. In the art context, this definition most often applies to galleries, art dealers and auction houses.
An action for breach of warranty must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. In general, accrual is measured from the date of the breach, which occurs when ‘tender of delivery is made’, regardless of a lack of knowledge of the breach. The UCC provides an exception, however, where a warranty ‘explicitly extends to future performance’ and ‘discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance’. Under those circumstances, the cause of action will accrue when the breach is or should have been discovered.
The United States does not have a public register for recording ownership of artworks. If a work of art is lost or stolen, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Stolen Art File is a database that may be consulted. The objects listed in this database are submitted by law enforcement agencies in the United States and abroad. Once an object is recovered, it is removed from the database.
A basic tenet of US law is that a goodfaith purchaser for value cannot obtain good title to stolen property. This rule applies regardless of whether the purchaser acquired the artwork at auction or by private sale, or from a subsequent purchaser rather than directly from the thief. Thus, the true owner has the right to reclaim such property unless barred by the statute of limitations or other defence. On its face, this rule tends to prefer the true owner’s rights over those of the possessor’s. The statute of limitations and other defences such as laches, however, may tip the scales in favour of the possessor. Whether a purchaser is considered to be in good faith depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, but, as a general matter, the possessor’s good faith will be contingent on his or her lack of knowledge that the object was stolen.
Where the possessor is in good faith, in some states, including New York, a ‘demand and refusal’ rule applies, under which the threeyear limitations period will not begin to run until the owner makes a demand of the possessor for the return of the property and the possessor refuses. The majority of states, however, follow a discovery rule. In these states, the limitations period, which differs depending on the state, begins to run when the plaintiff discovers, or after the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the whereabouts of the artwork. Where the statute of limitations runs, a claim for the return of stolen art will typically be barred, unless an equitable doctrine is applied to toll the applicable period. As a counterpoint to the statute of limitations, the equitable doctrine of laches may also bar otherwise timely art claims. To establish the defence, a possessor must show that the claimant unreasonably delayed in bringing the action to the prejudice of the possessor. A court may also weigh the relative equities between the parties in determining whether to apply a laches defence.
In the United States, title does not pass to a purchaser in bad faith, irrespective of the amount of time that has elapsed. Nonetheless, a claim for the return of the property may be barred as a result of the statute of limitations or pursuant to the equitable doctrine of laches.
US law does not require an art dealer to maintain a register of sale.
Where the contract is silent on the issue, the UCC provides that the risk of loss passes to the buyer from a merchant seller upon receipt of the artwork. If the seller is a non-merchant, the risk will pass to the buyer upon ‘tender of delivery’ of the artwork (ie, when the buyer receives notification reasonably necessary to enable him or her to take delivery of the artwork). The UCC also sets forth specific provisions concerning risk of loss when the artwork: (1) is either required or authorised by the contract to be shipped by common carrier; or (2) is held by a bailee to be delivered without being moved. The UCC provides that the risk of loss may be altered by contrary agreement of the parties.
US law does not impose due diligence requirements on the buyer. Nonetheless, the amount of due diligence conducted may impact a buyer’s remedies in the event of a claim. Courts also consider whether a buyer is a merchant or non-merchant in evaluating the reasonableness of the buyer’s due diligence. Thus, though not required by law to do so, buyers are typically advised to undertake certain threshold enquiries, such as determining whether there are indications that the artwork may have been stolen and to research the provenance of the work (eg, by contacting former owners of the artwork).
Although United States law does not impose a requirement on sellers to conduct due diligence prior to selling an artwork, proper due diligence on the part of the seller is advised. Pursuant to the UCC, the buyer is provided with various warranties that relate to, for example, the artwork’s authenticity, authorship and title. When the seller is a merchant, the UCC provides the buyer with additional implied warranties with respect to the artwork. Therefore, at a minimum, the seller of an artwork should endeavour to ensure that the artwork conforms to these warranties and avoid liability for a breach.
Where the seller is a merchant, a warranty of merchantability is provided to the buyer of an artwork. According to the UCC, for art to be merchantable, it must, in relevant part: (1) be able to ‘pass without objection in the trade under the contract description’; (2) be ‘fit for the ordinary purposes’ for which it is sold; and (3) conform to the affirmations of fact made in the sale catalogue or the bill of sale. Where the seller has reason to know of ‘particular purposes for which the goods are required’ and the buyer is relying on ‘the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods’, the buyer is also provided with an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Typically, this implied warranty will apply where the seller is a merchant, but it may, in particular circumstances, apply in cases where the seller is not. Both implied warranties may be excluded or modified by the parties.
A cause of action for a breach of warranty must be commenced within four years of accrual, which occurs when tender of delivery is made unless the warranty ‘explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance’. Under those circumstances, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.
Where an artwork is discovered to be a forgery or otherwise inauthentic, claims based on breach of warranties, fraud and mistake may be available to the buyer. Pursuant to the UCC, an express warranty may arise from any description or affirmation of fact or promise by the seller relating to the artwork that ‘becomes part of the basis of the bargain’. Such statements may be made by the seller in written materials, such as sale documentation, advertisements, brochures and catalogues, or from a seller’s oral statements to the buyer. Where the seller is a non-merchant, a court may consider such descriptions, including statements of attribution, to be mere opinion and not an express warranty. But, where the seller is a merchant or is otherwise considered to have a superior level of expertise, and the seller records the artist’s name in the invoice, this will generally be considered an express warranty. Good faith on the part of the seller is no defence if the statement proves to be false.
A buyer may also bring a tort action for fraud against the seller. To establish fraud, the buyer must prove that: (1) the seller made a misrepresentation related to a material issue of fact, either by way of a misstatement or nondisclosure; (2) the misrepresentation was intentionally made with intent to induce reliance; and (3) the buyer did, in fact, rely on the misrepresentation to his or her detriment.
A similar tort action that may be available in a claim for negligent misrepresentation. In contrast to a fraud claim, this cause of action may arise where the seller negligently, instead of intentionally, asserts a false statement. Generally, the seller must also owe a duty of care to the buyer.
Alternatively, a buyer may bring a claim on the grounds of mutual mistake, in which both parties are mistaken with respect to a material assumption on which the contract was made – in this case, the authenticity of the artwork. If, however, the seller is aware of the mistake or has reason to know of it, a buyer may have a claim for unilateral mistake.
Where both the seller and the buyer are mistaken as to the attribution of an artwork, the seller may, under certain circumstances, succeed in an action for rescission of the sale. Where, however, the seller could have discovered the true attribution of the artwork prior to the sale but did not do so because of a lack of due care or diligence, a court is unlikely to find that a mistake of fact has been made.
