An art collector commissioned an artist to create a sculpture for the collector. The artist
wanted a substantial amount of money for the sculpture. This caused the collector some
worry regarding possible dissatisfaction with the artwork once it was completed. To
ensure that payment would be made only if the collector was satisfied with the
sculpture, a condition was written into the commission contract. It required that the
collector would have to be satisfied with the artwork, relying on the collector’s taste and
judgment, before an obligation of payment would be created.
The artist never imagined that a collector could possibly refuse a creation of his and
allowed the condition to be placed within the contract. At the completion of the
sculpture, the collector claimed that she did not care for the artwork and therefore
refused to pay. Can the artist force payment in this situation? Would it help if the artist
could establish that the collector actually approves of the sculpture but has temporarily
run short on funds, and that this is the true motivating factor in refusing to accept the
sculpture?
For a change to constitute an alteration, the person making the change must be a party
to the instrument.