{"id":439,"date":"2012-06-01T14:10:30","date_gmt":"2012-06-01T21:10:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.danziger.com\/articlesnews\/?p=439"},"modified":"2012-06-01T14:10:30","modified_gmt":"2012-06-01T21:10:30","slug":"multiple-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/?p=439","title":{"rendered":"Multiple Intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"

When Selling prints, disclose or face the consequences.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

COUNTLESS (OKAY, THREE) clients have asked our help in deciphering
\nthe numerous disclosure requirements for selling
\nprints and photographs produced in multiples, a market that
\nhas grown exponentially of late.<\/p>\n

Quincy, for instance, was a bicoastal dealer with galleries
\nin Los Angeles and SoHo. He was on the verge of selling some
\netchings and asked our advice in complying with the California
\nand New York disclosure statutes. Based on his questions,
\nit didn\u2019t take an Einstein to figure out not only that Quincy
\nwasn\u2019t complying with these laws, but that his knowledge of
\nthem was practically nil.<\/p>\n

We began by zeroing in on the California Sale of Fine Prints
\nAct of 1970, the first law of its kind in the U.S. The statute
\nwas intended to protect consumers from abuses in the print
\nmarket, where unsuspecting buyers might, for instance, mistake
\na monoprint for a monotype. It prohibits art dealers from
\nselling or consigning a multiple \u201cinto or from this state unless a
\ncertificate of authenticity is furnished to the purchaser or consignee,
\nat his or her request,\u201d and mandates that the certificate
\ndisclose certain information, such as the size of the edition.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo if the purchaser doesn\u2019t specifically request a certificate,\u201d
\nasked Quincy, \u201cI don\u2019t have to provide one, right?\u201d<\/p>\n

Wrong. The law makes clear that, in any event, a certificate
\nmust be provided prior to a sale or consignment. If the purchaser
\npays for the print prior to delivery of the work, the certificate
\nmust be provided no later than the time of delivery.
\n\u201cIf I just need to give a buyer a simple certificate of authenticity,\u201d
\nQuincy observed, \u201ccompliance is no big deal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wrong again. The certificate is only one of the requirements.
\nSellers in California must also include in any catalogue, advertisement,
\nor other written material detailed information on the
\nmultiple, including (among other items) the artist\u2019s identity,
\nwhether or not the artist signed the multiple, the medium used
\nto create it, when it was produced, and\u2014if it is from a limited
\nedition\u2014the exact number of multiples in the edition. At the
\nbuyer\u2019s request, this information must be provided prior to
\npayment or the placing of an order for the multiple. If payment
\nis sent to the dealer before the work is delivered, the dealer must
\nprovide the information at the time of, or prior to, delivery. The
\nbuyer may be entitled to a full refund of the purchase price \u201cfor
\nreasons related to matter contained in such information\u201d if he
\nreturns the multiple within 30 days of receipt.<\/p>\n

The corresponding law in New York, titled \u201cFull Disclosure
\nin the Sale of Certain Visual Art Objects Produced in Multiples,\u201d
\nwas passed in 1982 and is closely modeled on the
\nCalifornia statute. It, too, requires dealers to make various
\nwritten disclosures about each multiple sold. Moreover, in
\norder to comply with both laws, print dealers must do some
\nmath, since different disclosure requirements apply depending
\non when the multiple was created. The two states divide the
\ndate of creation into four distinct time periods. In the case of
\nCalifornia, these are: before 1900, from 1900 to 1949, from
\n1950 to 1982, and on or after January 1, 1983. New York\u2019s
\ndates are roughly similar. The more recent the time period, the
\nmore disclosure required.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf they wanted dealers to comply, they should have simplified
\nthe laws,\u201d Quincy griped. \u201cIt hardly seems worth the
\neffort for a cheap little litho.\u201d We had good news for him: Prints
\nsold for $100 or less are exempt from both the California and the New York disclosure
\nstatutes.<\/p>\n

Quincy furrowed his brow. \u201cIsn\u2019t the artist who made the prints\u2014or
\nthe person who consigned them to me\u2014responsible for mistakes in the
\ninformation he provides?\u201d<\/p>\n

The answer is: It depends on your time zone. California does hold the
\nseller liable for incorrect or false disclosure regarding multiples. Under
\nthat law, dealers (but not artists) are held to a standard of \u201cstrict liability\u201d
\nfor any mistakes in the certificate of authenticity and violations of
\nthe law, which means that ignorance is no excuse. New York does not
\nhave the same requirement.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s totally unfair!\u201d exclaimed Quincy. \u201cHow do I, as a dealer,
\nknow the artist isn\u2019t scamming me with bogus edition numbers?\u201d<\/p>\n

Apparently, the New York legislature wondered the same thing. In
\nstriking contrast to the California statute, an artist who sells or consigns
\na multiple of his own creation in New York will be viewed as a merchant,
\nand will therefore incur the same liability as a dealer for any misrepresentation.
\nFurthermore, under the New York law, if the dealer can show
\nthat his liability arises from faulty information given in writing by the
\nconsignor, artist, or merchant, he can seek damages.<\/p>\n

\u201cCan I avoid liability under the disclosure laws by making some sort
\nof disclaimer?\u201d our client asked.<\/p>\n

The answer is yes in California, but possibly not in New York. The
\nlatter\u2019s law states that if the dealer makes disclaimers about information
\nrequired to be disclosed, he will be absolved of liability only if he made
\n\u201creasonable inquiries, according to the custom and usage of the trade\u201d
\nto ascertain the correct information.<\/p>\n

For an aggrieved collector to seek relief under the laws, he must
\nfirst return the problematic print to the seller (which may tempt an
\nunscrupulous dealer to resell the work to another buyer). Second, in
\nCalifornia the purchaser can seek civil remedies, such as rescission,
\ninterest, lawsuit costs, reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees, expert witness fees,
\ntreble damages for willful noncompliance, civil penalties of $1,000
\nper violation with a possible civil penalty surcharge of $1,000, and
\ninjunctive relief. Neither California nor New York imposes criminal
\nfines or imprisonment, so the risk to dealers is probably slight.
\nIn New York the civil penalties are limited to $500. Although both
\nstates allow their attorneys general to take action, they may only impose
\ncivil penalties.<\/p>\n

The good news for Quincy is that, to date, disclosure laws have
\nproved so ineffectual that almost no private lawsuits have been brought
\nunder their provisions. One often-cited exception was the 1982
\nCalifornia case Charlene Grogan-Beall v. Ferdinand Roten Galleries,
\nInc., concerning Grogan-Beall\u2019s purchase of a number of prints from a
\nCalifornia gallery. Except for the numerical indication on the prints, the
\ngallery gave her no information about the history or uniqueness of the
\nworks. Two subsequent purchases of prints by her from the same gallery
\nwere also problematic: The gallery provided an incomplete certificate
\nof authenticity for one print and only sent the required information on
\nthe second print three months after the purchase.<\/p>\n

Grogan-Beall initiated a class action on behalf of California print
\nbuyers for the gallery\u2019s failure to comply with the state\u2019s disclosure provisions.
\nThe court ordered the gallery to return to her the money paid
\nfor the prints, plus interest, but also required that she return the prints
\nin order to recover damages for willful violation of the law. The court
\ndenied her request for attorneys\u2019 fees and ultimately denied certification
\nfor a consumer class action.<\/p>\n

Our own view is that although government enforcement in this area
\nhas been virtually nonexistent to date, this may change as the prices
\ncharged for multiples\u2026multiply. In fact, you can count on it.\u00a0 Download this article here.
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

COUNTLESS (OKAY, THREE) clients have asked our help in deciphering
\nthe numerous disclosure requirements for selling
\nprints and photographs produced in multiples, a market that
\nhas grown exponentially of late.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/danziger.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}