Back to Insights- Commercial
- Media arts and culture
Shorter Reads
The 10 million dollar ‘handshake’
Grace Waterhouse comments on the importance of written contracts in the art world.
1 minute read
Published 18 April 2019
Key information
So called ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ are notorious in the art world, with dealers arranging sales of artwork on nothing more than a handshake, but the 2018 de Pury case should serve as a reminder of the importance of getting contracts down on paper.
The case centred on Gauguin’s painting Nafea faa ipoipo (meaning ‘When will you marry’?) which was sold by the Defendants, a Swiss family trust, to the Emir of Qatar in 2014 for the astronomical sum of $210 million. This sale was orchestrated, in part, by art dealer Mr de Pury, who introduced the Qatari royal family as potential buyers, and was involved in early negotiations for the sale. He did so under the impression that he would be receiving a $10 million commission, but the seller trustees decided against paying this under the mistaken belief that he had lied to them. So Mr De Pury took the defendants, once his friends, to court.
The two week court case which followed saw both parties attempt to discredit the other; putting forward an embarrassment of dishonest dealings, criminal offences and tax avoidance schemes. The judge himself refused to rely on either Mr or Mrs de Pury, whom he considered to be ‘deliberately misleading’, nor would he trust the evidence of Mr Staechlin, one of the trustees, by whose recollections the judge was ‘not persuaded’.
However, the judge was prepared to find in favour of Mr and Mrs de Pury, ordering them to be paid the $10 million, despite the lack of a written agreement in this regard. The basis for this decision lay ultimately in a meeting that took place on 26 June 2014, in which two of the trustees had agreed with Mr de Pury that if the painting was sold for $210 million, he would receive commission of $10 million. This, along with a handwritten note of the meeting with the words “Commission $10 m if $210 m”, was sufficient to amount to a binding contract. The judge found there was ‘nothing in the context or the expression of the agreement which would prevent the consensus reached from having contractual effect’.
This should serve as a stark reminder of the importance of establishing written contracts at the outset of a deal. Both parties could have avoided expensive litigation – and the outing of numerous skeletons – had they concluded a contract beforehand. It also highlights the importance of ‘entire agreement clauses’ (clauses preventing reliance on anything outside the terms of the written contract) because even the vague recollection of a meeting and a hand scribbled note can bind parties. Even in the art world, where deals are made through mutual connections and handshakes, it has never been more important to get it in writing!
Related latest updates
PREV
NEXT
Podcasts
Listen now
Good leaver or bad leaver?
Podcasts
Listen now
Conflicts of interestPodcasts
Listen now
Articles of association and shareholders’ agreements: what you need to knowPodcasts
Listen now
Decision making at board and shareholder levelPodcasts
Listen now
Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) and how employers should respond
Shorter Reads
Read more
Website cookies crumble as they fail to meet legislation
Longer Reads
Read more
Personal loans or personal risk?Videos
Watch now
Control the process: mastering your data processing agreements
Shorter Reads
Read more
New regulation supports businesses using online platforms to tradeLonger Reads
Read more
Setting up a business after Coronavirus: making the dream a realityLonger Reads
Read more
Coronavirus – Frustration and Force Majeure in Commercial ContractsLonger Reads
Read more
Privacy and real-time bidding: An updated guide for adtech vendors and publishersShorter Reads
Read more
From house chains to email chains – Are email signatures binding?Longer Reads
Read more
Estate agents- get your contract in place before you start workLonger Reads
Read more
How to make friends and influence people … and not get fined!
Related content
Shorter Reads
The 10 million dollar ‘handshake’
Grace Waterhouse comments on the importance of written contracts in the art world.
Published 18 April 2019
Associated sectors / services
So called ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ are notorious in the art world, with dealers arranging sales of artwork on nothing more than a handshake, but the 2018 de Pury case should serve as a reminder of the importance of getting contracts down on paper.
The case centred on Gauguin’s painting Nafea faa ipoipo (meaning ‘When will you marry’?) which was sold by the Defendants, a Swiss family trust, to the Emir of Qatar in 2014 for the astronomical sum of $210 million. This sale was orchestrated, in part, by art dealer Mr de Pury, who introduced the Qatari royal family as potential buyers, and was involved in early negotiations for the sale. He did so under the impression that he would be receiving a $10 million commission, but the seller trustees decided against paying this under the mistaken belief that he had lied to them. So Mr De Pury took the defendants, once his friends, to court.
The two week court case which followed saw both parties attempt to discredit the other; putting forward an embarrassment of dishonest dealings, criminal offences and tax avoidance schemes. The judge himself refused to rely on either Mr or Mrs de Pury, whom he considered to be ‘deliberately misleading’, nor would he trust the evidence of Mr Staechlin, one of the trustees, by whose recollections the judge was ‘not persuaded’.
However, the judge was prepared to find in favour of Mr and Mrs de Pury, ordering them to be paid the $10 million, despite the lack of a written agreement in this regard. The basis for this decision lay ultimately in a meeting that took place on 26 June 2014, in which two of the trustees had agreed with Mr de Pury that if the painting was sold for $210 million, he would receive commission of $10 million. This, along with a handwritten note of the meeting with the words “Commission $10 m if $210 m”, was sufficient to amount to a binding contract. The judge found there was ‘nothing in the context or the expression of the agreement which would prevent the consensus reached from having contractual effect’.
This should serve as a stark reminder of the importance of establishing written contracts at the outset of a deal. Both parties could have avoided expensive litigation – and the outing of numerous skeletons – had they concluded a contract beforehand. It also highlights the importance of ‘entire agreement clauses’ (clauses preventing reliance on anything outside the terms of the written contract) because even the vague recollection of a meeting and a hand scribbled note can bind parties. Even in the art world, where deals are made through mutual connections and handshakes, it has never been more important to get it in writing!
Associated sectors / services
- Commercial
- Media arts and culture
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesMessage us on WhatsApp (calling not available)
Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close
