Woman Claims to Have Bought an Unknown Van Gogh for $215 at Auction

This case fits in with our series on the contracts doctrine of mistake, addressed most recently here and here, but it is perhaps still more bizarre. On October 5, 2019, defendant Clearing House Estate Sales (CHES) opened bidding through Auction Ninja, an online platform, on an item identified as “Very Well Done Painting of Ships in Port – Signed ‘Vincent’ – Circa 1880-90 (painting). Emily Roy placed the last bid of $215, but then at 5:50 PM, the painting was withdrawn.

Ms. Roy is convinced that the painting is a previously unknown Van Gogh original, the value of which she estimates at up to $180 million.  I don’t know on what basis Ms. Roy thinks that she bought a Van Gogh for $215, but you have to admit, it looks pretty sus that CHES removed the item from the auction just when she was on the brink of buying it. I can’t think of any reason why they would do that other than the painting being a previously known Van Gogh worth up to $180 million.

Alas, the law was not on her side. Worse, the only version I can find of the court’s memorandum of decision is behind a paywall, but those of you with Lexis access can find Roy v. Clearing House Estate Sales here. Disappointingly, the case turns on the basic question of whether a contract was formed. Under Connecticut law, auctions are presumptively “with reserve.” CHES was thus allowed to remove the painting from the auction and thus decline Ms. Roy’s offer to become the proud owner a genuine VINCENT.

Ms. Roy’s counterarguments were unavailing. Both CHES and Auction Ninja represent that their auctions create binding contracts. True enough, says the court, but that requires that a contract be formed, and no contract is formed when an item is removed from auction before the final bid is accepted. Ms. Roy was similarly confused by the advertisement that most of the auctions hosted by CHES and Auction Ninja are “absolute auctions.” That is a term of art that signifies an auction without reserve. However, the website does not guarantee that all auctions are “absolute,” and CHES and Auction Nina nowhere indicated that the auction at issue was “absolute.”  

The whereabouts of the very well done painting are currently unknown.