Time Limits On Payment for Service or Goods?

Factual Questions
1

I was watching an old Dick Van Dyke Show episode, Laura has a painting of herself painting. The artist does it of her in the nude (she didn’t pose that way). Laura thinks she destroys the painting by throwing paint on it and runs out. Laura paid for the painting in advance.

Later the artist fixes it.

Years later the painting appears in a gallery with hillarious results :slight_smile:

Anyway I was wondering would a claim of payment still hold up years later?

Laura paid him $50.00 for it years before, but now that the artist is famous the same painting is worth at least $5,000.00

I know you can’t say exactly what would happen in a lawsuit but is there a time limit for which you can claim services or goods you paid for?

2

Check this:
http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/statue-limitations.html

and then check back with us if you’re left with any questions.

Basically, it depends on what jurisdiction it all took place in.
If the whole situation took place in Cleveland, I believe the answer would be “6 years”.
In Raleigh, absent a written agreement of any kind, the answer would be “3 years”.

3

It would in Australia be a much more complex question than is implied by** Mr Slant**. I am somewhat surprised by **Mr Slant’s ** implication that the limit would be that for a simple debt which from what I can make out appears to be what his link is about. But perhaps I am interpreting either the OP or the **Mr Slant’s ** post incorrectly, or maybe the time limits are the same for debt as for everything else in the relevant jurisdictions.

In Australia, if we assume for the moment that Laura paid for the painting and it was finished and it was hers but then her behaviour in defacing it constituted an intention to abandon it, she has no more claim.

If we assume for the moment that Laura paid for the painting and it was finished and it was hers, but she just walked out on it, then things get interesting.

I suspect there will be a great deal of difference here between jurisdictions. Certainly, Australia is different from the UK (even though our property law is generally quite similar).

Here, the painting would remain Laura’s, although in the painter’s possession. This will continue indefinitely, theoretically (although a point may be reached where an intention to abandon might be inferred). In order to recover the painting, she would have to ask for it. If her request is refused then a cause of action in *detinue * arises (only at that point) and she would then have six years within which to recover the painting.

In England, detinue has been abolished and Laura would have to rely on conversion. Conversion is a tort which arises when someone does something to your property that is inconsistent with your ownership of it. In this case, conversion might well arise at any time after Laura walks out, in particular if the painter sells the painting (which is clearly inconsistent with Laura’s ownership). Possibly also, the painter’s interference with the painting (removing Laura’s splashed paint) would be a conversion. Once there has been a conversion, Laura would have six years to bring an action to enforce. So in the UK Laura might be SOL at any time more than six years after she walks out.

There are also interesting quantum of damages/recovery of original questions arising all over the place, particularly if the painting is sold to an innocent third party.

At this point I got bored of analysing, but there are more issues. And I haven’t even begun on services.

The above is relevant to Aust. not the US and isn’t legal advice, is probably wrong because I’m not thinking about it too hard and haven’t actually checked up on sources, I’m not your lawyer etc.

4

I was answering the simple question posed by the OP and providing the notion of statute of limitations, rather than providing a legal opinion on the scenario in question.
I don’t even know where to start with the whole scenario.

5

The simple question posed doesn’t seem to be one of debt, which seems to be what your cite is about. But perhaps the limit is the same in the US, I don’t know.

6

That would be New Rochelle, CT. :slight_smile:

7

I interpret the OP to mean that Laura paid $50 for a painting, but didn’t take possession of it. Years later, she wants to take possession. Can she claim it? The rest is fluff IMO.

8

Nitpick: New Rochelle is in New York State. (Westchester County, to be specific.)

9

Other nitpick. New Rochelle is Laura’s home, but wasn’t the studio where the painting was done and paid for actually in NYC?

10

Actually, the issue is more than she simply didn’t take possession. She didn’t take possession in a way that indicated she affirmatively didn’t want to take possession, rather than simply forgot or was prevented by circumstances beyond her control.

And everything else in the legal arena flows from that point. Her intent when not taking delivery affects her rights years later.

11

I have nothing to add. I just want to say that I actually remember that episode! I miss watching that show.

12

Laura pays for the painting in advance because the artist is poor and has no money for brushes, paint and canvas. Of course the artist is in the Greenwich Village section of Manhattan.

The artist says “I’m done, come look.” Laura says “I didn’t pose for you like that!” (meaning nude) He replies “But that’s the way I see you.” “Fine,” Laura says “just tear it up destroy it.”

The artist refuses and tells her to leave. She then grabs paint and thows it on the painting and thinking she ruined it leaves.

Years go by and Laura and Rob and in New Rochelle NY, and the artist is famous and has his painting in a big NYC Gallery off Times Square.

So that’s the story. For those who never watched the episode, it’s resolved by allowing Rob and Laura to choose who gets the painting and they choose a buyer who lives in Brazil and for this the artist agrees to do another painting of Laura, this time though Laura comes out having three eyes, ala Picasso.