Christie's, although not happy about having to refund the purchase price and GBP $1 million in costs was pleased they were not found negligent in the selling of the painting, but also stated they stand by the Kustodiev attribution. The judge felt differently.
The Telegraph reports
Source: The TelegraphMr Vekselberg sued Christie’s and today the judge ruled that he was entitled to recover the £1.7 million he paid for the painting. Christie’s must also pay around £1 million in costs.
Following a 20-day hearing, Mr Justice Newey dismissed allegations that Christie’s was negligent or that it misrepresented the painting.
However, he ruled: “I do not think certainty on the point is possible but my task is to determine authenticity on the balance of probabilities and the likelihood, in my view, is that Odalisque is the work of someone other than Kustodiev.
“It follows that Aurora is entitled to cancel its purchase and to recover the money paid for it.”
Christie’s said they were “surprised and disappointed” by the ruling.
A spokesman said: “We welcome the judge’s findings that Christie’s was not negligent. We are surprised and disappointed by his view of the painting’s attribution. We maintain our belief in the attribution to Kustodiev and are considering our options.”
Lawyers for Christie’s argued during the case that Odalisque had a “reliable provenance”, pointing out that the painting featured a distinctive chair known to have been owned by the painter. They also claimed that the pigment used in the signature was available in 1919, albeit not in common usage until the 1930s.
The painting was first sold by Christie’s in 1989 for £19,000, but by the time of the 2005 auction its pre-sale estimate had risen to £180,000-£220,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment