Excusable Error in Auction Sales: Seller's Protection

Extract

[...] It recalls that the sellers had transmitted the entire set of documents in their possession to the professional responsible for the sale and had entrusted their assessment to him. The High Court then operated a displacement of the responsibility of the error and thus of the excusability: here, this is not appreciated in the light of the sole behavior of the seller, but concretely in the light of the obligations of the professional. Consequently, the high court has ruled out the inexcusable error in its judgment. [...]

[...] The jurisprudential law even retains that the article also applies in the case of an excusable error bearing on a person. As soon as this error is deemed excusable, it becomes fully operative again as a cause of nullity. The solution fits within the logic of Articles 1109 and 1110 of the former Civil Code: the error on substantial qualities, when it is not attributable to a serious fault of the contracting party, vitiates consent and justifies the annulment of the contract. [...]

[...] In default, his fault contributes to making the seller's error excusable. The doctrine is favorable to this jurisprudential decision, notably Labarthe: "If the judgment may seem severe with regard to auctioneers, it takes care to specify that all the elements relating to the establishment of a more prestigious provenance were in the hands of the auctioneer, and that the client was entitled to rely on a professional whose main task is that."; or again Frédéric Pollaud-Dulian: "In essence, the seller does not have to be curious, at least if it is, as here, a non-professional who relies on the professional". [...]

[...] The jurisprudence, as in the judgment of the Social Chamber of July considers that a gross error or resulting from a serious negligence of the contracting party itself cannot justify the nullity of the contract. In this case, in the same way, the Court of Appeal had retained the inexcusable nature of the error on the grounds that the sellers had not themselves examined the family archives stating a link with a renowned painter. In addition, 'the judgment holds that [the auctioneer] was never alerted and questioned [ . [...]

[...] The authenticity or attribution of a work of art is undoubtedly an essential quality, determining the consent of the seller as well as the buyer. The court explicitly mentions at the beginning of the judgment in the recall of the facts: 'the error made on the substantial qualities of the painting in the presence of strong presumptions that the painting is a work by the painter or a renowned artist'. Consequently, this error is found to be determining, since the price obtained did not reflect the real or presumed value of the work. [...]