Case:
D.1978.601 Case Epoux Saint Arroman v. Réunion des Musées Nationaux & autres , known as the Poussin case
Date:
22 February 1978
Note:
Translated French Cases and Materials under the direction of Professor B. Markesinis and M. le Conseiller Dominique Hascher
Translated by:
Tony Weir
Copyright:
Professor B. S. Markesinis

In view of article 1110 Code civil:

Given that when M. and Mme Saint-Arroman had Rheims auction a painting of theirs which Lebel, an expert, had attributed to “the School of the Caraccis” the Réunion des musées nationaux exercised its right of pre-emption and then displayed the painting as being an original work by Nicolas Poussin, and that when the Saint-Arromans sought the avoidance of the sale for error on an essential quality of the painting the Court of Appeal dismissed their claim on the ground that the error alleged was not established since it was not proved that the painting really was by Poussin;

Given that in so deciding without asking whether at the moment the sale was concluded the consent of the sellers was not vitiated by their mistaken conviction that the painting could not be by Poussin, the Court of Appeal failed to give a proper legal basis for its decision;

For these reasons QUASHES the decision by the Court of Appeal of Paris dated 2 February 1976 and remands the matter to the Court of Appeal of Amiens.

Subsequent Developments

Civ. 1, 22/02/1978 : Although this doctrine has sometimes been criticised by legal writers by reason of the threat it appears to make to the security of transactions, it falls into a more general and already long-standing line of cases according to which “there is mistake as to substance in particular where the consent of one of the parties has been determined by the false idea that party has as to the rights of which he believed he was divesting himself or which he thought he was acquiring by means of the contract” (Cass. Civ., 17 November 1930). In fact, it is relatively rare that the mistake of a contracting party relates to the asset he is selling, mistake, in practice, being much more often invoked by the purchaser. Moreover, it is necessary to put on one side, in particular in relation to mistake by a seller, the case of inexcusable mistake, which is not a cause of nullity of contract (see, in the area of real property, Civ. 1, 2 March 1964, Bull. No. 122; Civ. 3, 27 November 1979, Bull., no. 215; similarly, when the victim of the mistake had the duty to enquire prior to the sale: Civ. 3, 24 October 1972, Bull. No.534). Further, a mere mistake as to the value of a sold work of art cannot, of itself, be a ground of nullity of the sale (Civ. 1, 25 January 1965, Com., 26 March 1974, Bull no. 108). The mistake, whether by the vendor or the purchaser, must concern the very substance of the sold asset. This judgement of 22 February 1978 makes clear the notion of mistake and its evaluation by the courts (see “Les Grands Arrêts de la Jurisprudence Civile”, Henri Capitant, François Terré, Yves Lequette, Vol. 2, Dalloz, 2000, p. 35): since mistake lies in the difference between the conviction of the contracting party and reality, there is no doubt that such reality can, as in the present case, be tainted with uncertainty: the belief of the vendor (who was sure that the picture he was putting up for sale was not by Poussin) did not accord even with the uncertain reality (the picture is perhaps by Poussin), so that there was clearly a mistake as to the origin of the picture: “the mere possibility of attribution to Poussin gives the work a quite different element which in itself is not without effect on its value”. This doctrine may be found in another judgement, more recent and relating also to the sale of a painting of Nicolas Poussin (Civ. 1, 17 September 2003, Bull. No. 183 and 27 June 2000, published, application for review no. 98-15.483 and 98-15714).