Etude comparative des ventes aux enchères publiques mobilières: (France et Angleterre)

This work is concerned with the differences and similarities in auction law in France and England, with particular reference to works of art. It assesses the possibilities of harmonising the laws applying to auctions in the two countries in order to facilitate art transactions between them. Harmonisation for these purposes is understood as the coordination of existing national rules to meet a minimum standard of protection.

The preliminary part of this work considers the organisation of the profession of auctioneer in the two countries, as this contains elements which affect the question of harmonisation. For this reason, the regulation of the profession of commissaire-priseur and auctioneer is examined from a historical point of view. The historical account shows the origin of the differences between the two profession of commissaires-priseur and auctioneer. It explains the reasons why reform of the profession in France in 2000 became necessary, but argues the 2000 Act only partly achieved its aims.

The rest of the work is mainly concerned with the possibility of harmonisation in two fields: the contract of sale itself and the liability of the auctioneer arising from the sale.

The first part provides a study of the law relating to the contract of sale of goods between the vendor and the highest bidder. The aim is to evaluate the possibility of harmonisation of European contract law with respect to auction sales, particularly in relation to works of art. It is argued that differences in contract law are not an obstacle to cross-border transactions, as long as the standards in the two countries are broadly equivalent.

The second part examines the liability of the auctioneer. Firstly, it deals with liability in contract and tort. The aim is to determine whether it could be possible to harmonise these two sources of obligation for the auctioneer, so that the auctioneer would have to comply with a minimum standard of care and diligence. Secondly, it is argued that the regulation of the profession and the protection of auction sales by a set of criminal and disciplinary rules cannot be harmonised.