This is the context in which Bambury questioned
missing payments on sales made by Jensen’s gallery and Jensen, in the way of
these things, counter-sued. Now the High Court has found in favour of the
artist, awarding him over $100,000 plus interest accumulated over the years the
complaint has been in dispute. Jensen’s counter-claims were put aside. Of
course all this started with Jensen and Bambury working together very closely.
Jensen was a believer in Bambury and Bambury a strong supporter of Jensen’s
gallery with both benefiting. Unfortunately such friendships can also lead to
the business practices associated with them being looser than usual. Dealings can
get muddled via undocumented oral agreements, payments being used to offset other
expenses, trade-ins and so forth.
Indeed the court found the Bambury-Jensen relationship to be so closely intertwined that the judge regarded it to be more like a partnership than a business relationship between two separate companies. As a result issues of trust were seen as less critical than they might be in business to
business relationships. This maybe why some of Bambury’s
more complex claims were dismissed. So, a much reduced pay-out based on the initial claim
of around $700,000, but still significant. It will no doubt reverberate through
the dealer gallery system and should be a wake-up call to artists look carefully
at their own responsibility to keep track of their work and the money it brings
them.
