Artist Peter Doig victorious as court agrees '$10m' painting is not his work

I've been thinking about this since the first article was posted a while back. Something really bothered me about this case, and I finally put my finger on it. I realize this thread may not be read since it has long fallen off the front page, but that's ok.

The problem is that plaintiff's case is logically flawed at its very core. The argument is that Doig cost him $10 million by refusing to authenticate the painting.

Why is that authentication worth anything? Because Doig is in a position to confirm that it is part of his oeuvre. And any such authentication, if provided, assumes that Doig is telling the truth.

But Doig refused to authenticate the painting. Now plaintiff says he's a liar.

So, if he's a liar, his authentication is worthless.

If he's telling the truth, the painting is not by him.

In other words, plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There's no need to even gather further evidence. It's disturbing that it took a federal judge three years to decide this; but then again, they are political appointees, so the standard isn't really whether they are logical thinkers.