It is indisputable that Sotheby`s infringed the agreement by not consulting the applicant on the marketing of the plant (Opp at 21). He acknowledged an injury by claiming that Sotheby`s actions in marketing the painting, without his contribution, resulted in poor marketing and a depressed selling price of the work, which had the effect of reducing his share of the estate. In addition, the low price of the painting will probably lower the price of Basquiat`s other works in the family collection (id. to 23). In so far as the applicant refers to the extension of an agreement, the extension is described in the Burri Agreement, in which `Sotheby`s agrees that, if [Neumann], one of the trusts, the members of the Neumann family and all undertakings controlled by or under common control with one of the preceding ones, leave additional property held by one of them (the `Additional Property`). for auction. . . .
on or before April 9, 2019, pursuant to a mutually agreed consignment agreement stipulating that Sotheby`s will offer this additional property in accordance with the registration terms contained in this Agreement. subject to appropriate modifications” (§15). There was no intention to be bound by the e-mail agreement, but only to the small and burri agreements (Memo at 15). Both sides were awaiting a subsequent letter (16 id.at). The courier agreement also fails for lack of consideration, since Neumann does not offer any counterpart to the right to control the marketing of auction items (id. to 17). The simple agreement to be discussed in the email agreement is not itself an agreement. On April 6, 2015, Neumann received a “design document.” In an email dated that day under the heading “Financial Considerations,” he says he is “reading the project” and makes several comments that reflect terms that are not in the March 24, 2015 (id.) “contract.” Three days later, on April 9, 2015, Neumann and Sotheby`s signed a “loan and consignment agreement” for an auction of the small painting (NYSCEF Doc. No.
7). A year later, Neumann stated that the March 24, 2015 agreement had been “slightly revised” and formed the basis of the April 9, 2015 loan and consignment agreement” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 7). The agreement of 9 April 2015 contradicts the “language of approval” of the “contract” of 24 March 2015 that Neumann intends to apply here. This Agreement expressly reserves the “absolute discretion of Sotheby”. . . . (iii) provide a catalogue and other descriptions of the property, as Sotheby`s deems appropriate.
. , (v) the marketing and promotion of the auction; and how the auction is organized” (id. . .