I had six-month contracts for three paintings that are consigned with a
local art gallery.
The contracts have just expired and the paintings didn't sell, and I've
agreed g to sell the paintings to another local gallery at a reduced
price because I need the money.
In the meantime, a man who lives in the city where I live saw my art
prints on display at his sister's home in another city, which is about
500 miles away from the city where the man and I live. (The sister
probably bought the prints at an art gallery in the city where I live.)
The man then tracked me down through my Web site and said he wants to
look at one of the paintings.
Do you think it's ethical to try to sell that painting to him privately
and bypass the gallery where I had verbally agreed to sell the paintings?
Instead of taking the paintings directly to the second gallery, I'm
planning to bring them first to my home this week for my customer to get
a chance the buy the one he likes (which he saw on my Web site.)
The gallery owner who I agreed to sell the paintings to is upset. He's
accusing me of breaking our verbal agreement to imminently bring in all
three of the paintings and doesn't want me to deal with the public.
I told the gallery owner that the verbal agreement was based on the
premise that the paintings would still be available by the time we
arranged for their transportation to his gallery, and that because we
hadn't yet moved the paintings to his gallery, there is no binding,
written contract with him, and that the unsolicited request from the
customer was unexpected and unforeen.
I also reminded him that we don't have an contract that gives him the
exlusive right to buy my paintings, and that I'm not taking his (or
anyone else's) customer away, and that I'm not going out of my way to
find customers privately. It's just once in a blue moon a customer will
contact me privately about buying my art, and the painting this man is
considering buying is not currently restricted by a contract, because
the contract says that I'm free to remove the painting from the gallery
where it's displayed after a six-month period.
When I consign paintings to galleries and customers of those galleries
contact me privately to buy my paintings, I refuse to sell directly to
them because I honor my contracts with the galleries because of the hard
work that they do to promote my work. I empathize with the gallery
owners, but I feel my plan to try to sell one of the paintings privaely
in this situation is justified because I wouldn't be taking away any of
the galleries' customers and I believe that I have drawn this customer
to me through my skilful and dilligent marketing efforts when I created
and published my Web site.
Tony
> Do you think it's ethical to sell paintings privately, bypassing
> galleries, in the following situation?
Okay, luckily I have pretty succinct answers on this one.
One, yes, I think it's ethical to sell the painting(s) privately in
the situation you describe, as long as it's just as you describe it
(and you're not conveniently leaving anything out).
Two, verbal contracts _are_ binding. However, in this case, it sounds
like it wasn't very clear when you were promising the paintings to be
delivered to the gallery, and not clear that you promised them
unconditionally. Also, even though verbal contracts are binding, it's
of course harder to defend them in court (from the gallery's side in
this case). That's why contracts should always be formal, in writing
instead (for the benefit of both sides). Chances are that the gallery
would never win if they bothered to take it to court.
However, the real issue is this. The gallery owner is peeved at you
about the situation, and that's not going to go away just because you
or I think it's ethical, and especially not just because they wouldn't
win a suit. So, you have to balance potentially (or probably) burning
that bridge against making a higher percentage on a sale. If the
gallery seems promising (and it's a start that at least they're buying
works outright instead of a consignment deal), that wouldn't be a
bridge I'd want to burn. What I'd do instead is think about a number
of compromises, then propose the one(s) you think are the best. These
could include: providing additional works to the gallery in place of
the initially promised works, maybe at an additional discount if they
let the private sale go through, or, letting the client see the
painting privately in person first, but then purchasing the work
through the gallery at a later date, or offering the gallery a
commission as the client picks up the work directly from you, but a
smaller commission (arguing that "at least the work is guaranteed sold
in this case and you're receiving some money from it, even though
you've not had to do anything"). Basically, you'd have to eat a few
dollars, or bust your butt to provide additional work that the gallery
finds acceptable, but it's probably worth it to not burn the bridge.
--King Rundzap
Tony --
Did you agree to sell the paintings to the new gallery or through the new gallery?
If the former you should ask to get a commission to send an outside client to them
because you are basically selling something for them. If the later you should try
to get a higher percentage on the all your sales through them. Marketing anything
takes time. The exposure you got at the previous gallery will trickle in a certain
number of sales in the future so you should try to factor this in when you deal
with the new gallery. Screwing a gallery is a major mistake and it will cost you
big time in the future. You might try to walk in with a written contract that
reflects the verbal agreement, as you understand it, and if they won't sign it
then I'd talk to a lawyer (there are in some states lawyers that will do work probono
for artists).
-- Gary Oblock
--
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara, CA
http://www.bronzedreams.com
-------------- ad for the hosting service I use ---------------
Free Web Hosting with Domain Registration or transfer
http://freewebhosting.catalog.com/jump/mw...@earthlink.net