{"id":1148522,"date":"2026-08-14T17:42:30","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T17:42:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1148522\/"},"modified":"2026-08-14T17:42:30","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T17:42:30","slug":"buyers-sue-londons-alison-jacques-gallery-over-cancelled-sale-of-monica-sjoo-paintings-the-art-newspaper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/1148522\/","title":{"rendered":"Buyers sue London’s Alison Jacques gallery over cancelled sale of Monica Sj\u00f6\u00f6 paintings – The Art Newspaper"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yoed and Natasha Anise are suing the London-based Alison Jacques gallery for breach of contract after the gallery cancelled the sale of three paintings by Monica Sj\u00f6\u00f6, following objections from the Swedish artist\u2019s estate.<\/p>\n

The case, which is due to be heard in the Central London County Court in March 2027, centres on the Anises\u2019 first-ever art acquisitions: three large paintings by Sj\u00f6\u00f6 (1938-2005), titled Meeting the Ancestors at Avebury (1993), Forest Beings (1997) and Amazon Women of the Bronze Age (1999), which were bought on 6 October 2023 from Alison Jacques gallery for \u00a3264,000, discounted by 20% from the asking price of \u00a3330,000.<\/p>\n

On 16 November 2023, the Anises met Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s relatives, representatives of the artist’s estate, at a dinner celebrating the opening of her retrospective<\/a> at Modern Art Oxford, in which the paintings were included. Days later, the Anises\u2019 art adviser Marie St Germain was informed by Jacques that the estate had rescinded the sale, allegedly due to remarks that Natasha Anise made at the dinner. The remarks in question, Anise tells The Art Newspaper, were that she said she had never bought art before and she might never again. The couple asserts that Jacques wrote in emails in November 2023 that the gallery had been “misled” about the Anises\u2019 “credentials” by St Germain, and that \u201cMrs Anise had made representatives of the Estate \u2019very uncomfortable\u2019 by oversharing things about her personal life and emotions\u201d. Natasha Anise tells The Art Newspaper that her remarks were not serious, and she had planned to be a steward for Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s works, including loaning them to museums for exhibitions.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Monica Sj\u00f6\u00f6, Meeting the Ancestors at Avebury, 1993<\/p>\n

\u00a9 The Estate of Monica Sj\u00f6\u00f6. Photo: Albin Dahlstr\u00f6m\/Moderna Museet<\/p>\n

According to a counterclaim filed by Jacques, Anise also said she planned to hang the works in her children\u2019s rooms\u2014something the gallery said was unwise due to the paintings\u2019 fragile condition and the fact they were unprotected by glass. \u201cThe claimants neither desired nor intended to promote appreciation for Monica Sj\u00f6\u00f6 and for the artworks among a wider public, including by loaning the artworks to museums but, rather, only intended to use the artworks for decorating their children\u2019s bedrooms,\u201d the counterclaim states.<\/p>\n

The gallery\u2019s rebuttal also alleges that St Germain misled a gallery employee with whom she was in contact, by stating the Anises were \u201cbeginning to collect and have the potential to be very important supporters for this artist\u201d ahead of the sale. Jacques argues that \u201cbeginning to collect\u201d differs considerably from \u201cnever bought art\u201d.<\/p>\n

During a phone call on 22 November 2023, the counterclaim asserts, St Germain told Jacques that she \u201cwished she had not allowed the claimants to attend the opening in Oxford and to have direct contact with the estate as she had been worried that allowing them direct contact \u2018would not be a good idea\u2019 and that she should have \u2018kept them separate from the estate\u2019\u201d. The counterclaim alleges that St Germain also spoke of her \u201cregret\u201d at \u201callowing anyone involved to meet them\u201d and said Natasha Anise had cancelled a proposed dinner on 14 November 2023 with Jacques and St Germain over concerns she \u201cwould screw it up\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Anises, who live between Austin, Texas, and Stockholm, operate a tech company within the alcohol industry. Natasha Anise befriended St Germain, who previously worked for Galerie d\u2019Orsay in Boston and Heather James Fine Art in Austin, eight years ago at a mothers’ group in Texas. St Germain discussed collecting as an investment with Yoed Anise, but he was not compelled to buy anything until he and Natasha visited Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s retrospective at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm in September 2023, after which the couple asked St Germain to source some of the artist’s works.<\/p>\n

St Germain contacted Alison Jacques, which began representing<\/a> Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s estate in May 2023. \u201cMarie told us a lot of times, for new collectors, they\u2019ll just sell you one,\u201d Yoed tells The Art Newspaper. \u201cTo our surprise, they were willing to do two, even three, and they were able to give us a discount.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Anises paid for the paintings on 6 October 2023, though they did not have immediate possession as the works were still on loan to Modern Art Oxford and were promised to Moderna Museet Malm\u00f6 for the museum’s presentation of the Sj\u00f6\u00f6 retrospective in 2024<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Alison Jacques’s gallery in London<\/p>\n

\u00a9 Rundell Associates <\/p>\n

The Art Newspaper has reviewed emails exchanged between Jacques, St Germain and Yoed Anise between November 2023 and March 2024. On 22 November 2023, the day Jacques called St Germain about the rescission, the adviser argued that, according to their contract\u2014which stated \u201cownership will be transferred to the buyer upon receipt of funds\u201d\u2014the Anises already owned the paintings.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the wording of the invoice is not clear then I apologise,\u201d Jacques responded the next day, explaining that the contract actually meant title only passed once the gallery paid Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s estate.<\/p>\n

The Anises\u2019 contract stipulated the paintings were \u201cconfirmed\u201d for exhibition at Modern Art Oxford and Moderna Museet Malm\u00f6 as Sj\u00f6\u00f6\u2019s retrospective travelled until September 2024. The museums would credit the loans to \u201cThe Anise Family\u201d and insure the works. But, after the Anises\u2019 lawyers told Modern Art Oxford of the dispute in February 2024, the museum sent the contested paintings to Alison Jacques gallery, where they remain in storage.<\/p>\n

Alison Jacques\u2019s counterclaim concedes the paintings indeed belonged to the Anises upon payment, and that Jacques had been \u201cincorrect\u201d in claiming otherwise. On 1 December 2023 the gallery tried to return the Anises\u2019 funds, but they were not transferred due to a banking error. On 28 February 2024, Jacques emailed the Anises saying the estate had agreed to either honour the contract and release the works, or rescind it and return their funds with interest\u2014both in full and final settlement.<\/p>\n

Full refund<\/p>\n

But the Anises refuse to accept either. They are now seeking a full refund for the works (\u00a3264,000) plus the 20% discount (\u00a366,000), which they claim would reflect the works\u2019 market value, and St Germain\u2019s fee of $31,944 (or \u00a326,400, 10% of the purchase price). \u201cI offered to return the commission,\u201d St Germain tells The Art Newspaper, but the Anises declined, \u201cacknowledging there was no fault on my part\u201d.<\/p>\n

The Anises are also claiming travel expenses of \u00a39,091 for their trip to the UK in November 2023, legal costs and a provisional \u00a326,400 in damages for the loss of \u201cpleasure, amenity, prestige and heritage value\u201d. The exhibiting of the works in museums, publicly credited to the Anise Family, \u201cwere an important part of this\u201d.<\/p>\n

In its counterclaim, Alison Jacques gallery denies any breach of contract and claims: \u201cFor around ten months the claimants refused either to take possession of the artworks or treat the sale as rescinded and accept a refund, and demanded various monies (eg compensation for the claimants\u2019 hurt feelings, that the defendant pay the cost of a holiday the claimants had taken).\u201d The attempts to recoup such damages, the gallery’s counterclaim alleges, \u201care misconceived and are denied. Either the contract has been rescinded and the claimants\u2019 only entitlement is the return of their monies, or the contract is still in effect and the claimants\u2019 entitlement is, essentially, to take possession of their artworks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regarding the alleged damages incurred by the paintings\u2019 omission from the museum shows, a representative for the gallery says this is beside the point: \u201cThe purpose of the contract was to effect a sale of tangible goods.\u201d<\/p>\n

Traditionally, such disputes between galleries and collectors are settled privately, with both parties preferring to maintain their privacy. But Yoed Anise tells The Art Newspaper: \u201cIf this prevents me from other people thinking that I’m a credible collector, then so be it. I would prefer artists who want to work with me.\u201d<\/p>\n

A legal representative for Alison Jacques told The Art Newspaper in a letter that the gallery’s “position is unchanged from what has been set out in its statement of case”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Yoed and Natasha Anise are suing the London-based Alison Jacques gallery for breach of contract after the gallery…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1148523,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[7757],"tags":[236965,9929,748,68838,393,4884,19905,257,16,15],"class_list":["post-1148522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-london","tag-alison-jacques","tag-art-market","tag-britain","tag-commercial-galleries","tag-england","tag-great-britain","tag-lawsuits","tag-london","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/117095103423189756","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1148522","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1148522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1148522\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1148523"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1148522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1148522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1148522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}