Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. The module counts three interests in one painting consigned to a dealer. Which ones?
The owner's value, the bailee's liability, and the bailee's expected commission
These are three interests of different natures and not three valuations of the same one: one bears on the object, another on a possible fault, the third on an expected gain. None merges into another, and that is why their sum can exceed the object's value without over-insurance: the indemnity principle is assessed interest by interest, not object by object. The answers listing three valuations of the same asset describe exactly the error this module undoes, the one that sees a duplicate where there are three distinct losses.
Glossary entry →2. An accidental fire, caused by building wiring the gallery does not control, destroys the consigned painting. Does the gallery's bailee liability section respond?
No: bailee liability is a duty of care, and the fire stems from no fault of the gallery
A liability cover presupposes liability, and that is the obvious point people forget because the word bailee evokes custody. A bailee owes care, not a result: in the heaviest losses, which rarely involve fault, its liability does not trigger, and that is precisely where cover was assumed. The answer having the stock section take over adds a second error to the first, and the module handles it separately: a work received on consignment is not the dealer's stock.
Glossary entry →3. The gallery's stock section is valued at cost. What does it owe on this consigned painting?
Nothing: the work cost the gallery nothing, its cost value is nil
A section valued at cost pays what was disbursed, and a work received on consignment cost nothing. The gallery is therefore covered for nothing at all, while its loss is real: 200,000 euros of lost commission, an amount neither policy carries for want of having been insured as an interest in its own right. The answer retaining the commission names exactly the right loss and files it in the wrong section: it is a distinct interest, insured separately, and it had not been. Retaining the sale price would confuse the owner's interest with the bailee's.
Glossary entry →4. The collector believes the gallery insures it, the gallery believes it is covered. Who receives what?
The collector receives 800,000 euros from its own policy, at agreed value; the gallery receives nothing
Both parties are wrong, in opposite directions, which is this file's signature: the collector is fully covered but by its own policy, and the gallery is covered for nothing while losing its commission. The single line in the consignment contract, 'the work is insured while at the gallery', was accurate and settled nothing: it asserted a fact true in every case instead of saying by whom, for how much, and for whose benefit.
Glossary entry →5. The module reduces the consignment contract to one question. Which one, and what else would it have settled?
If the object disappears tomorrow through nobody's fault, who receives how much and from whom; and the same clarity would have set the mutual waiver of subrogation for the case where the gallery is at fault
The question is framed without fault for a precise reason: it is the commonest case and the only one where both parties believe themselves covered. Putting the faulty case instead would have hidden the gap, since a fault triggers liability and creates the illusion that the arrangement works. And had the gallery been at fault, the question would have moved to the collector's insurer's recourse against it, which the consignment contract could have waived mutually and equally failed to address: the same missing line costs on both sides.
Glossary entry →