The New York Times has stepped into the fray in reviewing the New York Court of Appeals's decision to review the Rabizadeh/Jenack appeal concerning the application of New York's Statute of Frauds to compel disclosure of a consignment seller at auction. The article zeroes in on the potential impacts to the ways in which auction houses do business. I am quoted in the article and the Art Law Report is referenced on the topic of mandatory disclosure.
Something I did not focus on as much when the Appellate Division's decision came out last fall is that not only would the decision come into play if a winning bidder won't pay, but also when the bidder will. As a matter of contract formation, once a bidder wins an auction there is a contract, which neither the auction house nor the seller can avoid. A binding agreement is just that: it binds both parties. At that point, a willing buyer is also of concern to anyone hoping to keep the seller a secret: that buyer could sue to enforce the contract she has with the auction house, part of which includes the seller's name.
One very interesting thing to watch in advance of the parties' briefing will be to see who tries to weigh in as an amicus. We will be watching.
