Qing chains chopped

It looks like the seller of the 18th century antique Chinese vase that broke all the records when it was "sold" at auction in 2010 will finally see a return.

Many will recall that back in 2010 this vase, created in China during the reign of Emperor Qianlong (1736-95), was sold at auction for £43m. The buyer, reportedly one of the richest men in China, was to pay this sum, plus the auctioneer's, Bainbridges, commission of £8.6 million. The Sellers, who had found the vase in their attic, were set for an incredible pay day.

Unfortunately, the deal stalled when seller refused to pay the Bainbridges' commission. It seems that it was part of the conditions of sale imposed by Bainbridges that a flat commission of 20% of the purchase price be paid, rather than using a sliding scale, often used by the larger auction houses.

The Sellers were unable to do anything, due to the terms imposed on them by Bainbridges – preventing them from selling the vase through another auctioneer.

And Bainbridges could not move from their 20% without the risk of legal action from the underbidder.

There was then a lot of speculation as to what was actually happening, which Bainbridges could not address having signed confidentiality agreements with both the seller and the buyer.

Those darn lawyers and their contracts!

There then followed almost two years of negotiations between Bainbridges and the buyer – to no effect.

The good news is that Bonhams swooped in to save the day. They were approached by an interested party and were able to successfully broker a deal with Bainbridges and the seller. The result: an unidentified buyer from the Far East is believed to have paid around £25 million for the vase. The majority of this money is said to be going to the seller, but Bainbridges will also be compensated. In any case, I'd say there was plenty of pie for everyone. Hopefully, it is all written down in a helpful contract!

Source: The Telegraph, 16 January 2013

Sir Anthony Caro asserts moral rights over “mutilated” work

Sir Anthony Caro, an internationally acclaimed sculptor and one of the leading figures on the English abstract art scene, has reportedly objected to the description by Bonhams of one of his sculptures as his work in their catalogue. Instead, he claims, the work been altered in such a way as to misrepresent his original work and, furthermore, infringes his moral rights. Explains The Guardian:

“The five-metre, rusted and varnished steel sculpture entitled Lagoon is part of the 20th Century British Art sale on Wednesday, has had a catalogue estimate of between £100,000-£150,000.

Caro, who was awarded a lifetime achievement award in 1997, said: "It's been mutilated. It had legs welded on to it and it is nothing like the original. It stands several feel higher than the original. It is going on show on public exhibition as a sculpture of mine and it's not.

"I sold it to Peterborough Sculpture Trust, who I understood to be trustees for sculpture to keep for future generations. I didn't know they would use it as something to speculate with. That doesn't make me very happy."

A spokesman for Bonhams said: "The sculpture was commissioned from Sir Anthony by the Peterborough Sculpture Trust, which is now selling the work through Bonhams in order to raise funds for its other activities. The work was commissioned to stand on outside has legs for support. During its long period of exposure to the elements the sculpture has become weathered and at some time was unfortunately spray painted in some areas by vandals. The spray paint has been removed with only minor traces remaining.

"Sir Anthony contends that the legs on which the sculpture stands are not his work although that is not the recollection of the trust's staff who dealt with the installation of the piece on site many years ago. Whether Sir Anthony was responsible for the legs or not they have no impact on the artistic integrity of the piece. They are invisible when the piece is placed in the ground outside as originally intended."

Sir Caro has apparently offered to buy back Lagoon, which he sold to the trust in 1984, but the parties have been unable to agree terms. Neverthless, Caro retains his moral right to object to derogatory treatment of the work – which includes: distortion or mutilation of the work or treatment that is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author. If Sir Caro was not aware of the alterations to his work, the addition of metal legs, the graffiti as well as the deterioration in the general condition of the work due to lack of care, may well be considered sufficiently prejudicial to his honour and reputation, if not to mutilation of the work. Accordingly, he could have a good claim for infringement of his moral rights.

The work in question - Lagoon - in its present state

Source: The Guardian, 8 March 201