[benjulmag]

Not sure I agree entirely with what you said -- that its not as black and white as you make it seem. If in fact an institution knows or reasonably should know its stolen items are about to be auctioned and take no steps to reclaim them or put good faith buyers on notice of their claim, then I believe there is serious legal question whether the good faith purchaser cannot successfully defend against an action initiated years later to reclaim the item. As I understand the law, if you are slow or lax to assert your rights and know or reasonably should know your inaction will be to the detriment of good faith third parties, then you will be deemed to have waived those rights. In fact, in the art world, in regard to items stolen by the Third Reich, isn't some of this codified into law? Aren't individuals/heirs who reasonably should have taken actions to assert their claims (e.g., listing the stolen artwork with an international registry) prevented from years later belatedly doing so at the expense of good faith purchasers?