Takashi Murakami Dasha, Gaga, and Gago Party for MOCA Crazy for Koons A Showdown for Doig at Christie’s In the Right Circles Murakami's Geisai Fair Moves from Miami to Taiwan Blum & Poe Times Four Pop Life: A Material Whirl

Send a letter to the Editor

Save to Del.icio.us Digg this

Arthur is suing based on a chapter of the California Civil Code called the Fine Prints Act that allows for triple damages in situations when a dealer "willfully" fails to provide documentation of an art print's authenticity. The collector says that MOCA did not provide any documentation at all for the two limited-edition Murakami prints he purchased for $855 each, and his attorneys argue that the museum should be held responsible for any prints it has sold without documentation in the past four years.

The museum declined to comment until officials have finished reviewing the suit. Louis Vuitton issued a statement calling the suit "baseless litigation" and saying that his company offered Arthur a refund plus interest, but the collector refused. Steven Thomas, an L.A. attorney not involved in the case, told the Times that only "one or two" lawsuits have been litigated under the obscure law, through more may have been filed and settled quickly.