## Facts

- Sir William Eden asked artist James McNeill Whistler to paint a portrait of Eden’s wife, Lady Eden.
- Whistler stated that a full portrait would cost more than 500 guineas; Eden instead requested a head portrait, and Whistler quoted a price of 100–150 guineas.
- Lady Eden sat for Whistler in Paris in January 1894.
- Whistler painted a full portrait rather than the requested head portrait.
- In February 1894, Eden visited Whistler’s studio and viewed a version of the painting that was nearly, but not fully, complete.
- As Eden left the studio, he left Whistler a check for 100 guineas, which irritated Whistler.
- Whistler exhibited the painting in Paris under the title “Brown and Gold: Portrait of Lady E.”
- Eden demanded possession of the painting; Whistler refused, stating that the portrait was not yet finished.
- Eden sued in Paris for possession of the painting; during the dispute, Whistler painted out Lady Eden’s face so that the work was no longer a portrait of her.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the parties agreed on the commission and price and Eden tendered payment, Eden could compel delivery of the canvas when Whistler claimed the work was unfinished.
2. Whether Whistler’s later alteration of the painting (removing Lady Eden’s likeness) defeated Eden’s demand for the commissioned “portrait.”
3. What remedies were appropriate if the painting was not to be delivered, including whether Whistler’s further use of the work could be restricted.

## Decision

- The trial court held that Eden became the painting’s owner once the parties agreed that the portrait would be made and for what price, and it ordered Whistler to deliver the painting, return the money paid, and pay damages.
- The Paris Court of Appeal (Dec. 1897) reversed the order requiring delivery of the painting to Eden.
- The appellate court left in place monetary relief against Whistler (including repayment and damages).
- The appellate court also prohibited Whistler from making any use of the disputed painting until he had transformed it so that the sitter was no longer recognizable.
- (Subsequent history) The Cour de cassation later rejected Eden’s challenge and left the appellate result intact.

## Legal Principles

- A commissioner’s payment and a fixed price for a commissioned artwork do not necessarily entitle the commissioner to specific performance compelling delivery of the physical work.
- An artist may resist forced delivery where the work is claimed to be unfinished and the artist has not assented to release it as the final work.
- When the artist has materially altered the canvas so it is no longer the commissioned likeness, a court may decline to order delivery of “the portrait” as demanded.
- Even when delivery is denied, the commissioner may obtain financial remedies such as refund and damages.
- A court may restrict an artist’s public use of a portrait when continued use would identify the sitter, requiring alteration to prevent recognition.

## Conclusion

In *Whistler v. Eden* (Dec. 1897), the Paris Court of Appeal refused to force Whistler to hand over the commissioned portrait after he maintained it was unfinished and had altered it so it was no longer a portrait of Lady Eden; instead, the court provided monetary relief to Eden and barred Whistler from using the disputed work until it was changed so the sitter could not be recognized.


Whistler v. Eden, Dec. 1897