An art dealer has been ordered to pay £111,000 over a missing abstract painting compared to a giant “burnt digestive biscuit” by a judge in a London court.
The court heard that the piece by the Mexican artist Bosco Sodi – a round painting with a cracked surface built up using natural pigment, sawdust, wood pulp, natural fibres, water and glue – went missing after being loaned to the London art dealer Esperanza Koren in 2012.
Koren was subsequently sued for €100,000 (£85,700) by the owners of Barcelona-based gallery Principal Art, which owns the two-and-a-half-metre-wide painting.
Art dealer Esperanza Koren was accused of failing to pay €100,000 for a painting called Untitled in red 2011, which she had promised to buy for €100,000 in 2013. The judge, Alan Saggerson, described the painting as having a burnt digestive biscuit appearance and stating it may be of value to some. Koren had worked as an agent for Principal Art gallery and was loaned a large set of paintings to exhibit in 2012. However, her representation was unsuccessful, and she was asked to return unsold works.
Untitled in red 2011 was sold, but the art dealer’s unsuccessful representation led to her being asked to return unsold works.
Koren failed to return the Bosco Sodi piece, as a gallery representative requested it from a Miami buyer who offered €100,000 for it. The court found that Koren offered to buy the artwork for the same amount, arguing it was a legally binding contract.
Saggerson claims the artwork is missing, and the gallery’s lawyers have not received any money from WhatsApp messages. Carlos, a gallery employee, sent a message to Koren claiming the large red Bosco was missing.
The employee arrives in Miami on Tuesday with a €100,000 client paying for a red painting. They are eager to capitalize on the opportunity and sell the painting, which they believe is fantastic.
The judge agreed to pay the agreed price, but Koren was unsure of the painting’s location. He requested an adjournment but was refused.
The judge ruled that the defendant has no recollection of the painting’s whereabouts, leading to the inference that she used it as security for other debts. The judge awarded £86,500 in damages, plus £6,500 interest and £18,000 costs, totaling £111,000. The Guardian should not support the verdict.
