No, he has now a less credible work attributed to Doig. Credibility is worth money.
I can't go out and buy stock and sue the company if it doesn't give me a 250,000:1 return on investment.
You can if the stock was already worth 250000:1 and then the CEO made allegedly false claims that crashed the price.
Assuming he's actually the author, he's in a way "defaming the painting".
Anyway, I think all damages should be capped at the original price point, 100$, even in the absurd case the judge sides with the buyer.
The "intrinsic" value may be so, but the market value is whatever people are willing to pay for it, and that counts too.
In other words, you've just swept a messy question under a rug and acted like we'd all be smarter if we just called the mess "a rug" and ignored the details. Economists talk like that because they don't care about the art (they care about economic abstractions.) But you can't think like that if you want to answer questions about art, because those abstractions break down if you do.
But if you buy stock which explodes in value - even if you didn't expect its value to go up - you'd expect to be able to sell it at the market value as genuine stock, no?
No, but if you bought stock in a tiny startup that later increase 250,000:1 you can sue the company if they claim that the stock you claim to own isn't valid any more. That was basically half the plot of that Facebook movie they made.
Some 16 year old kid paints something, figures it's worth $100 and sells it for that amount. 40 years later it's now worth ~25 million dollars. The original creator never promised that value to the buyer. On the very remote chance that Peter Doig loses the case, what could he realistically owe? The buyer still has exactly what they paid for, and nothing less. The buyer didn't buy the painting with the expectation that it would someday be worth millions. I can't go out and buy stock and sue the company if it doesn't give me a 250,000:1 return on investment.