Dickinsons sold the painting on behalf of the Claimants to another dealer, a point which the Claimants alleged was negligent. The court did not consider that a dealer-to-dealer sale would constitute any form of negligence, unless there was some evidence to indicate that the seller in such circumstances knew or should have known that they could have sold at a higher price directly to the other dealer’s client, and actively decided not to do so. There was no evidence to suggest that in this case. 

After the sale, the buyer conducted a deep clean of the painting and found a previously unseen signature, said to be that of Chardin. This did not feature prominently in the Claimants' case, even though the buyer then marketed the painting as a “fully autograph masterpiece by Chardin himself”. It was not disputed that Lord Wemyss, on behalf of the Claimants, had instructed Dickinsons to conduct only a light clean before the sale. In addition, it is generally recognised that a signature on a painting does not necessarily mean that the painting is by the artist alone.