An interesting precedent in Canada
 

This was to be the largest auction of contemporary art in the history of Canada. On the sale of the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal was billed more than 60 paintings from the collection of expressionist artist Jean-Paul Riopelle, 44 of which belonged to the painter's brush. But for 24 hours before the auction took place quite a rare event: three children, the artist made a court order prohibiting the sale of works of their father. Heirs explained mvoi of fears that the proposed works, estimated at 12.8 million dollars will go to auction at low prices.

Paul Marechal, professor of art history at the Graduate School of Arts, not sure of the correctness of the heirs. "If among these paintings were masterpieces, which could reach, say, $ 1 million, the market could really prove to be too narrow in order to sell well all these works. But in my opinion, the lot consists of a very different works for different types of buyers.

Artists who have managed to maintain a constant high quality of its products are rare - Titian, Picasso, even if the product of the last period of his controversial. But they - an exception to the rule.
According to Mr. Marechal Riopelle - artist primarily large format. "To respond to the expectations of the market, the artist painted the picture of relatively small size. This work is much less interesting, and we can not expect that they will reach very high prices. We must cease to indulge in sweet dreams. /.../

followed by a rather banal arguments about the dangers of buying on auktsmonah, etc., I did not translate.

I am interested in the argument heirs, by which they forbade the sale. Surprisingly, though?


Exhibited whether they work, do not know, in principle, should have been.
It happened 3 years ago.

And the work they exhibited? And this is the recent case?

And do not otfutbolili them in court, and listened, and decided in their favor! That's what we in this shit is not enough.

Well, of course not enough. Sorry for îôôòîï, could not resist and did not paste here: last week was amended in the laws regarding the confiscation of property, which now relies more and over: knowingly giving false testimony, expert opinion, incorrect translation during the preliminary investigation (Article . 307), attempts on the lives of judges, members of the investigation and prosecution, as well as their relatives (Article 295) and is a witness or victim from their stated above (Article 308), bribery, or coercion of witnesses to give false testimony or mistranslation ( Art. 309), forgery of signatures of voters (Part 2 of Art. 142), bribery of voters or members of election commissions (Part 2 of Art. 141)

Ah yes, one more important addition: A warrant for the confiscation is not the decision of the court, and conviction. The concept of "compensation for damages" is replaced by "compensation for damages».

and do not forget: Basmanny Court is the Basmanny court in the world! ))))

Although the reason for rejection of the auction while in Canada rather dubious ...