Comments about ‘Teichert painting at center of suit with LDS Church, gallery owner’

The critical piece of information needed to evaluate the story is the term (effective date) of the consignment agreement. In any event the gallery owner's breach of contract is with the previous owner of the painting - not anyone else (person or corporation).

Wow! Sister Teichert would be astonished at the numbers flying around her work. I guess her reward came in Heaven and everybody else seeks to cash in right here.

Of course the plaintiff named the LDS Church. Deep pockets.

Now, if they can prove collusion - that the Church saw that the painting was on consignment, didn't want to pay the commission, and initiated a behind-the-scenes deal, they might - I say MIGHT - have grounds to file against the Church. But it seems clear that the gallery had no contract with the Church, only with the owner, so their beef is with the owner.

Sounds like greed. When an offer comes around cutting out the dealer commission, greed rears it's ugly head and leads one to do dishonest dealings. Can someone, just for once, stay true to their word?

If the gallery only had one offer and it was for $100k lower than they hoped and it was refused then it's strange that the gallery demand full commission payment. That seems like a REALLY big if that it would have sold for the full asking price. Sounds like this guy is just out to get some cash wherever he can.

its funny the lengths people on these threads will go to justify the possible misbehaviors of the individuals and organizations they agree with and/or belong too. I guess wrong is only wrong if its the other guy.

It's always greed. One reason why we're exhorted to lay up our treasures in Heaven.

@barbara

Would you tell Sister Teichert that she should work for free if she were alive today?

@J-TX

Of course the plaintiff named the LDS Church -- not because he has "deep pockets," as you unrighteously judge, but because of a distinct possibility of church collusion and also based on the alleged, direct interaction between the gallery and the Church.

@Johnny Triumph

If you'll recall, the commission was percentage-based, not a fixed sum.

@anti

But you'll notice that the full amount in the suit plus lawyers fees is more than the full price commission amount. I understand it was percentage based. Also, collusion or not with the Church, the real breach of contract would have been between the owner and the gallery, not the Church.

WHO received payment?

WHAT was the amount of the payment?

WAS there a valid contract with the gallery?

If there was a valid contract with the gallery, then the party that received payment owes a commission to the gallery.

Compare it to taxes. When taxes are owed, does the government go after the person or company who paid for something, or do they go after the person who received that money. Why would it be different in this case? Why should the Church be sued for paying a bill? Did the Church have a contract with the gallery?

Hmmm... artwork has a funny way of increasing in value based on the amount of publicity, intrigue, conspiracy, fraud, and/or theft that is in its history. This piece has just become much more valuable than it was a few months ago.