Buying investment art, authenticity, risk, and a four proof framework

Rod Thomas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4100808
2022-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Risk for investment art transactions is usually asserted to be on the buyer. However, fine art is a tangible asset and legally subject to the same general legal principles that apply to the sale of other tangible assets, such as cars, real estate, and so on. Further, under consumer protection legislation, the artist, the dealer, and the auctioneer will all be "in trade" and members of the buying public will normally fit within the requisite statutory definition of being a “consumer”. This paper argues that for New Zealand law, the transactional risk in terms of selling investment art to consumers is placed firmly with the seller, and not the buyer, at least for sales made to consumers. Four proof requirements are suggested in the discussion that follows. These are proof of identity, proof of authenticity, proof of ownership, and proof of authority to deal. They are first used to as a tool to discuss historical and present problems arising with current proof requirements used to establish authenticity and the ability to pass good title. They are then promoted as a useful framework for future transactions, enabling the parties to better focus on key indicia to enable authenticity and credible transactions that properly reflect where the risk lies. the analysis covers the sale of NFTs as artworks, in terms of proof of authenticity and ownership, but that is not the key purpose of this paper.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?