Shippers should therefore limit the power of an art dealer to deliver works of art to another art dealer without the prior written permission of the shipper. This situation is of crucial importance because of the so-called «entrustment doctrine» referred to in the ESDP, which provides that when an owner of goods entrusts goods to a trader defined by the developing party as «the one who negotiates goods of this type»1 (for example. B an art dealer), the merchant may transfer all rights of the owner, even if the owner has not actually authorized the sale or conditions. The prohibition of subcontracting by the art dealer ensures that the only merchant capable of physically transmitting the work of art is the distributor that the sender has personally chosen. If the shipment is a large collection shipped for sale for several years, the shipper should require annual inventories showing location and status (for example. B loan) from each factory. It is apparent from the documents filed that, in parallel with the conclusion of the bacon consignment contract, an agreement was also reached, in which Christie`s agreed to pay the seller a loan of $4.89 million, with interest to be paid quarterly and the table to be paid as security. In addition, a buyer could be anywhere and the cost of legal action against such a buyer could be prohibitive. In such cases, the insurance companies refused to cover themselves on the grounds that the seller`s insurable interest ended in delivery to the buyer and, in other cases, on the ground that the loss was due to the breach of contract and not to the physical loss of the artwork.9 until the buyer has paid in full.

and that the recipient is responsible for the purchase price if it ignores this requirement. . . .