00:00In this judgment of February 5, 2002, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on the
00:05'error concerning the substantial qualities of a work of art.
00:08In this case, a buyer acquired at auction a painting presented as being the work of an artist, Daniel Shperry.
00:14However, he discovers that the painting was not created directly by the artist, but fabricated by a third party.
00:19licensed before being authenticated by the artist himself.
00:22The buyer then requests the cancellation of the sale due to error as to the substance, on the basis of article
00:27Article 1110 of the old Civil Code.
00:29The Court of Cassation overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, ruling that the judges should have investigated
00:34if the buyer had not been the victim of an erroneous and excusable belief regarding the identity of the
00:38'material author of the work.
00:40Thus, the authenticity of a work is not necessarily sufficient to establish that it was personally executed by the artist.
00:45'artist.
00:46This ruling therefore recognizes that the identity of the person performing the act can constitute a substantial quality that determines consent and justifies
00:53the nullity of the contract due to error.
00:55It is important to remember that an error regarding the identity of the artist who created a work of art can constitute an error in
01:00a substantial quality, even when the work has been authenticated by the artist.
01:03Subtitling by Radio-Canada
