[Aurornis]

> So the museum director was happy, curators were interested and they were on display - feels like the money was his?

The contract decides who owns the money. It doesn’t matter if the museum director was amused or not. The money didn’t belong to the museum director, it belonged to the museum. There is no loophole in the law that says you get to keep the other side’s money if you can make them laugh in the process.

This is a straightforward breach of contract case.

Or maybe the museum could claim their lawsuit was also an art piece entitled “The Power of Contract Law” and then all of the critics of this decision would be happy again?

[Daviey]

I think you've misunderstood the intent of why someone commented on the museum director being amused. I think the understanding is that if the person who commissioned the work was "happy" with the result, then the artist had fulfilled his contract by supplying work that the commissioner was "happy with", despite it not being as they thought they were getting.

However, as it now turns out the money was only "lent" to the artist, so it wasn't his to retain. THAT is the reason that the reaction of the director isn't relevant.

[dustymcp]

Yes that money was not payment but a prop to the artpiece.