http://museum-security.org/denney
--------------------------------------------------
You are a frustrated museum curator, whose ambitous development plans have been thwarted by lack of funds. One day X offers to donate some valuable works of art that would fill an important gap in the collection.   X claims to have inherited the works from A and is fulfilling A's last wish by donating the works to your museum. What do you do next?

(a) Do you take the word of X at face value and accept the donation on grounds that you should never look a gift horse in the mouth?
(b) Do you thank X and - mindful that there might be other claimants to title - tactfully ask for clear proof of title before acceptance?

It would be interesting to know what factors would influence your choice of (a) or (b) and whether or not you would have any independent checks done on the provenance of the works in question.

Some days later Z appears on the scene claiming part ownership and producing evidence of ongoing litigation between himself and X. Suppose you had gone for option (a) and were already in negotiation with X, would you now:
(c)  continue to negotiate with X, as if Z did not exist?
(d) suspend negotiations with X until litigation between X and Z had been decisively settled?

What kind of arguments would you employ as you tried to make up your mind between going for (c) or (d)? 

Having reasoned this far, you will realise that museums may face significant risks during the acquisition process and that difficult moral choices may have to be made. You are now invited to try out your reasoning powers on a real case history involving valuable 20th C. art to be found at:

http://museum-security.org/denney

Your comments on or off line would be greatly appreciated.


Antony Anderson
[log in to unmask]