[Facts and Procedure Omitted]

The Court:

Considering that an expert attribution in the catalogue of works of art offered for public sale constitutes for both the seller and the buyer an essential quality of the work in question, and that the details in the catalogue demonstrate the seller’s view of the essential characteristics and true nature of the object he is offering for sale; Given that in this case the picture sold on 21 February 1968 was described as follows: “Carracci (School of), Bacchanale. Canvas enlarged: 1.03 m. by 0.87 m.”, and given that when there is any doubt about the authenticity of a work of art it is normal practice to use terms such as “signed by …”, “attributed to…”, “school of …”, “style of…”, “style of…” and so on, whereas in this description, which determines the nature of the item, there is no suggestion of a possible attribution of the work to Nicolas Poussin or even his studio, his style or his mannerisms, and given that in the absence of any such reference, the indication “School of Carracci”, to which it is certain that Nicolas Poussin never belonged, excludes any possibility of attribution to Poussin, so that it is proved that when the sellers offered the piece for sale they were convinced that it was not from the brush of Poussin and but only that it should be attributed to the School of the Carracci;

Considering that since it is only the belief of the sellers at the time of the sale which counts, previous references by the Saint-Arromans to the family tradition that the picture was by Poussin are largely irrelevant, and that as laymen they cannot be blamed for accepting the categorical opinion of M. Lebel, a well-known expert retained by Me Rheims , a very reputable auctioneer, or for accepting that their family tradition was in error and that the work could not be by Poussin;

Considering that though the auctioneer and their expert testified that the Saint-Arromans did not mention the family tradition, this cannot be taken as proved, since this uncorroborated evidence was volunteered by parties with an interest in the outcome of the litigation, and it furthermore beggars belief that the Saint-Arromans, eager as they were to sell their picture at the highest price, would not have told their agent of the attribution current in family lore, or that such practised professionals would not have asked them what they knew of the provenance of the picture they were offering for sale, so that there is no factual basis for the argument that the Saint-Arromans were seriously at fault in not disclosing their belief as to the author of their picture;

Considering that given the terseness and contradictory views of the experts some doubt still subsists about the attribution to Poussin, a matter which the court cannot resolve in the absence of clear proof, the court cannot accept the argument of the Minister of Culture that the only mistake of the Saint-Arromans was as to the view entertained by certain experts regarding the attribution and not as to the attribution itself; indeed, the division of opinion which makes it impossible to exclude the possibility that the work be an “authentic Poussin” supports the claim of Mme Saint-Arroman that the mistake made by her husband and herself when they sold the painting was that they were convinced that the picture could not be original, just as the evidence shows that while the Réunion des Musées nationaux may not have been absolutely sure that the painting was by Poussin when it exercised its right of pre-emption and acquired the painting they were at any rate sure that it was not as described in the catalogue, for otherwise how could one explain their being authorised to match a bid as large as 40,000 francs, a sum twenty-five times the value of 1,500 francs put on it by the expert M. Lebel? ; and furthermore, a fortnight after the sale an article by Jacques Thuillier, a Poussin specialist, referred to the picture as a Poussin discovered by the team of young curators at the Louvre, an opinion which the Réunion des Musées nationaux had adopted at first instance and then abandoned for tactical reasons.

Considering that the argument of the Minister of Culture that Mme Saint-Arroman’s error was only an error as to the value of the painting, and so not a ground for avoidance of the sale, lesion not being a ground of rescission in the case of movables, must be rejected, since there is a distinction between an error as to economic value, which results from putting an erroneous estimate on the worth of an item whose qualities are correctly apprehended, and a mistake as to an essential quality which has the result that its value is different from what one supposed, and it is the latter which is involved in this case;

Considering that it is unnecessary to deal with the other arguments of the parties since it suffices to hold that in believing that they were selling a mediocre painting by the School of the Carracci which could not be by Poussin, whereas it may be, the Saint-Arromans were making a mistake as to the essential quality of the thing sold which caused them to give a consent which they would not have withheld had they known the truth of the matter, from which it follows that the judgment avoiding the sale of 21 February 1968 under article 1110 Code civil must be confirmed and, in addition, an order made for the return of the painting to Mme Saint-Arroman against her repayment of the price received for it, namely 2,200 francs.

Subsequent Developments

CA Versailles, 07 janvier 1987 : The authenticity of a work of art generally constitutes an essential element thereof, and a purchaser who contracted under the mistaken conviction that the work was authentic may have the sale nullified. (Civ. 1, 7 oember 1995, Bull. No. 401). Further, this judgement adopts the doctrine laid down by the judgement of 22 February 1978 according to which it is indifferent whether the mistake is that of the seller or of the purchaser in relation to the authenticity of the work purchased or sold. This is an unwavering line of cases, in spite of certain criticism by legal writers. The mistake of seller or purchaser must not, however, be inexcusable if the nullity of the contract is to be allowed. In this case, the Court of Appeal of Versailles refuses to find inexcusability and states that the sellers had, prior to the sale, submitted their picture to examination by a well-known expert, who had concluded that the painting was not by Nicolas Poussin. This same expert report led the Court of Appeal to hold that there was an absence of risk, in the minds of the sellers at the time of the sale, as to the authenticity of the painting, or, more precisely, as to the fact that the latter were sure, at the time of the sale, that the object of the sale could not be by M. Poussin (see Civ. 1, 17 September 2003, Bull. No. 183, relating to another picture of Nicolas Poussin). Finally, the same judgement reminds us that the only thing that matters is the conviction of the contracting party at the time of the sale: the fact that the seller may have mentioned a long family tradition which attributed the painting to Nicolas Poussin is therefore irrelevant in respect of the evaluation of mistake by the court (for a more recent application of this rule, see Civ. 3, 05 July 1995, Bull. No. 174, which emphasises that the consent of the purchaser had been vitiated by his “ignorance of the inexistence of his right of pre-emption” at the time of the sale).