Under what law could Peter Doig have been liable for saying he did not paint a painting?
<p><a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/painter-peter-doig-wins-2-5-million-in-sanctions-against-a-gallery-that-tried-to-force-him-to-take-credit-for-another-artists-work-2243646" rel="nofollow noreferrer">It is in the news</a> that Peter Doig has won a case, including being granted $2.5 million in fees, after he said he did not paint a picture.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/arts/design/peter-doig-painting-lawsuit.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">From the NYT</a> at the time the case was submitted, the claimant says &quot;His suit contends that Mr. Doig is either confused or lying and that his denials blew up a plan to sell the work for millions of dollars.&quot;  After seeing the facts of the case, it seems obvious that Mr. Doig was neither confused or lying, but what if he was?</p>
<p>None of the articles state exactly what law may have been broken here.  Under what circumstances could someone sue another for either being confused or lying about the fact of if an item was created by them?</p>

<p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/robert-fletcher-bartlow-gallery-ltd-v-peter-doig-gordon-veneklasen-matthew-s-dontzin-the-dontzin-law-firm-llp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The original lawsuit</a> was filed &quot;seeking damages for their alleged tortious interference with Plaintiffs' prospective economic advantage by taking action that scuttled the auction of a painting owned by Fletcher, and also seeking a declaration that Doig painted the painting&quot;, insofar as Doig denied being the painter of the work. To simplify matters, Fletcher came to possess a painting, (purportedly) believed that it was painted by Doig, and sought to sell it for a large amount of money. Doig stated that he did not paint the work. Doig acted to prevent the sale of the painting – that is against the law. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgement, that the painting <em>was</em> made by Doig.</p>
<p>In a trial subsequent to the above ruling, the court actually declared that the painting was <em>not</em> done by Doig, and Doig sued for &quot;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1927" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vexatious litigation</a>&quot;, being awarded a sanction of $2,525,958.35.</p>

is-x-legal