[SJackson]

I'm not necessarily saying she should have known in 1963, that was Sotheby's responsibility, and I'd speculate they knew all they had to know, which they may or may not have communicated to Liz.

But she knows now. Rightfully it's not hers, legally it is now. I'm ok with that, but I find her actions interesting.

Just a note, till the 1998 treaty which essentially determined that all post 1933 German transactions were under duress, the nature of these pieces wasn't a secret. And it was assumed that the transactions were perfectly legal, that 1933 to 1945 didn't exist. The fact that it might be a NAZI piece wouldn't be a reason to conceal it. Interestingly some of the largest $$ cases in the last few years were initially pursued in the late 1940s, unsuccessfully. The rules did change post 98

[WL-law]

Duress can take many different forms.

Here’s a hypothetical, based on a real case. In WWII Greece, a family is willing to pay a princely sum to a man who, at great risk to himself, successfully smuggles the family to safety.

After the war, the family (survivors) sues to get the money back, claiming duress and offering, as evidence, the huge amount of money paid for the service.

The court ruled against the family. The contract was valid, and the court would not deem to judge whether the consideration paid for the service was excessive. Any amount of consideration was enough to create a contract, and the court said “even a peppercorn” was enough to create a bona fide contract.

So how do we know that this type of payment wasn’t made to secure safe passage to South Africa? And perhaps the smuggler risked his life. How much is his life worth — as much as a painting?

[ErnBatavia]

Rightfully it's not hers, legally it is now. I'm ok with that, but I find her actions interesting.

I'm sure she hasn't a damn clue - laying abed with her diapers - lawyers are probably busier than usual before the "estate stuff" kicks in -- undoubtedly not far away.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I'm not necessarily saying she should have known in 1963,

Then we agree. I have no problem with them suing her for the return of their property it was the claim that she "must have known" that bothered me. That kind of thing could set a dangerous legal president.

But she knows now. Rightfully it's not hers, legally it is now. I'm ok with that, but I find her actions interesting.

Once again I think we agree. I would find it laudable if she, after having won, would turn around and say that now that she knew she would return it to the family.

But I do understand her not settling the case. I wouldn't, because that would be admitting that I willingly and knowingly received stolen property. Or maybe I am giving her too much credit.