Agatha Christie Fortune 'Sold By Accident'

[Dudette]

An auction house is fighting for the return of a collection of treasures which belonged to Agatha Christie after mistakenly selling it inside a trunk for a thousand times less than its value.

More... (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Agatha-Christie-Treasure-Chest-Auction-House-Fights-For-Return-Of-Writers-Jewellery-And-Coins/Article/201003115567709?f=rss)

[Halo]

Senior consultant at the company, Andrew Thomas told Sky News Online that he plans to fight to see the treasure returned to the auctioneers.
"The question of good title has been raised and we are currently taking legal advice.
"What was offered in the auction sale was the leather chest, not the items of jewellery or coins later discovered.
"As these newly-found items were not described in the catalogue list, I believe we have a case."

Sore losers by the sound of it.

Finders Keepers I say. Agatha would have wanted it that way. :)

[Strong]

If I remember my legal studies right, that sounds about right Halo, finders keepers. The sale would be assumed to be the trunk and its contents. At auctions, the buyers are allowed to peruse the items for auction before hand, so it is assumed everybody knows what they are buying. I don't see why it should be the other way around for the auctioneers. Surely the assumption should be that they know very well what it is they are auctioning.

[Halo]

Wow, Strong the would-be-lawyer. :o

Unfortunately:

Mr Thomas says there is a precedent for this case and that a similar incident had resulted in a victory for the auctioneers.
"There was a case in September 2007 in which drawings were discovered in a bureau after it had been auctioned.
"Because the art was not listed at the time of sale, and there was no intention of selling it, we could reclaim the sketches."


I'd understand if a family member had sold the trunk and forgetten they'd put the valuables in there, then then the ethical thing to do would be to return them to the original owner.

What galls me is that it was sold 4 years ago, the auctioneers never saw (or knew of the existence of) the valuables, and it was sold by a business not a family member who just want to make more money and are sad that they lost out.

They probably didn't have the balls to prise open the locked drawer in 2006 just in case in lowered the value of their potential sale.

If there was a bad genie, a cursed flesh-eating scarab beetle, a mini Chuckie sized psycho mummy, or some vile diseased thing in there that did harm to the buyer, would the auction house be clamouring for ownership (and responsibility) of said nasty? I think not, they'd wash their hands of the whole thing.

[Strong]

No just college law stuff before the computing degree. Forgotten most of it now.

Everybody wants a piece of the pie if it looks sweet enough.

The time lapsed would give the court some pause for thought perhaps. It seems to be a long time in someone else's possession for the auctioneers to make claim over it, but they'll try. That precedent complicates things no end.

I still think the assumption is that the item and all its contents are included in the sale. The presumption should be the auctioneers have fully checked the item before putting it up for auction, that means at the very least they opened all the draws. For the court to think otherwise seems ridiculous to me.