Back in August, the New York Times ran a story about a heated dispute between actor Alec Baldwin and gallerist Mary Boone over a painting by Ross Bleckner.  Baldwin has now commenced a lawsuit in New York state court against Boone and her eponymous gallery, claiming that she defrauded him into buying a different version of the painting he wanted.  See Docket No. 654807/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).

Baldwin alleges that he had long admired Bleckner’s 1996 painting, “Sea and Mirror,” and even carried around a picture of it in his briefcase, although he had never seen it in person.  He claims that in 2010, he told Boone (who has represented Bleckner for decades) that he wanted to acquire the work, so she told him she would reach out to the owner.  She then wrote back to Baldwin, describing the painting as one that had been exhibited “with Larry Gagosian in 1996” and sold at auction in 2007, and bearing inventory number “MGB #7449.”  She represented to Baldwin that the current owners, who lived in California, were not “motivated” to sell it, but that they would ask $175,000; she offered to arrange the purchase for Baldwin for a $15,000 fee (which she said was discounted from her usual fee).  And he agreed to pay her the total of $190,000.

Baldwin claims, however, that Boone knew she would not be delivering the 1996 original of “Sea and Mirror.”  When Baldwin took delivery, he noted that it “appeared brighter and smelled different” than he expected.  He says he asked Boone about it, at which point she doubled down on her false representations, claiming that the painting’s appearance and smell were due to the fact that the work had been cleaned prior to delivery, as a “courtesy” because the previous owner had been a “heavy smoker.”  He also claims that she stamped the inventory number, 7449, on the back of the painting she delivered to him—the same inventory number that had been assigned to the 1996 original of “Sea and Mirror”—to further convince Baldwin that it was the  original.

According to the complaint, Baldwin lived with what he believed to be the 1996 “Sea and Mirror” for several years after the 2010 purchase, but began to have more misgivings in 2016 after learning from other art experts that it was unusual for a gallery to have a work cleaned prior to delivery without informing the buyer.  At this point, he says, he reached out to the artist directly with his concerns.  The artist referred Baldwin back to Boone, who allegedly dodged his questions.  Frustrated, Baldwin consulted an expert at Sotheby’s who confirmed that the work in Baldwin’s possession was not the original 1996 “Sea and Mirror.”  Baldwin claims he then confronted Boone and Bleckner, at which point Bleckner apologized and Boone admitted orally that she had never purchased the 1996 “Sea and Mirror” from the California collection; rather, she sold Baldwin a “copy” of “Sea and Mirror.”

The complaint doesn’t explicitly spell out what Baldwin means by a “copy,” but according to the New York Times account of the parties’ dispute, Baldwin has indicated that that the work he has was in fact “created by Mr. Bleckner” and “looks quite similar” to the work he originally admired; it’s just not the original 1996 version.  Rather, he has suggested that Boone, after failing to persuade the California collector to sell the original, may have “persuaded Mr. Bleckner to take an unfinished work from the same series” and “finish painting it” so

Boone could sell that newer version to Baldwin.

Boone has not yet responded to the complaint, but her statements in the press suggest that she is prepared to admit that the work Baldwin has is not the original 1996 version.  Rather, her version seems to be that she informed Baldwin that he was not getting the original 1996 version, but a different version of “Sea and Mirror,” which he understood (a fact that Baldwin denies).

The case represents, once again, a dispute that might have been averted had the parties put all their representations and understandings into a comprehensive written contract.  (See other recent examples here and here.)  In fact, in this case it is unclear what, if anything, was ultimately incorporated into any type of formal written agreement; this likely leaves a court (and perhaps eventually a jury) to sort through the parties’ email correspondence and he-said/she-said testimony to try to determine the truth.  Providing as much precise detail as possible about the work being purchased becomes even more vital when an art transaction involves a work which may exist in multiple versions or editions.  This issue arises more commonly in the context of limited edition prints.  See David Tunick, Inc. v. Kornfeld, 838 F. Supp. 848, 851 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (in which the court observed that “two prints, by the same artist and from the same plates, are not interchangeable”).  But as this case shows, problems can also arise where there are similar original works; here, the two versions of “Sea and Mirror,” even if very similar and even if they were both literally created by Bleckner’s hand, likely differ in key ways in terms of their history and provenance, aesthetics, and market value.

The case is also interesting because of the involvement of the artist himself.  Baldwin has chosen at this point not to name Bleckner as a defendant (and, in fact, as the New York Times pointed out, Baldwin’s foundation helped to underwrite an exhibition featuring Bleckner this summer).  But the artist may turn out to be an important witness to the extent the case may require examination of how exactly the second version of “Sea and Mirror” came to be, and who knew what and when.

Finally, this case illustrates the way in which a soured art transaction can become very expensive very quickly.  Baldwin, in his lawsuit, seeks more than the simple refund of the price he paid Boone (which, according to press accounts, the Mary Boone Gallery says it has already offered him); he also seeks punitive damages, years’ worth of interest, and attorneys’ fees.  He has also requested treble damages, invoking a New York statute designed to address deceptive business practices.  Again, careful contracting prior to consummating an art transaction can mitigate the risk of a contentious and costly litigation later.