Richard Serra and Permanence
Source: Public Art, Public Controversy
pg. 35: “The terms of Serra’s contract were adapted from a form the GSA uses for contractors and suppliers generally. The larger part of the contract consists of federal procurement boiler plate. The contract contained little to suggest that the complex legal relations involved in the projects. More important, omitted was what Serra contends was his inducement for entering into the contract: the promise that the work would be permanently installed at its site. Serra’s lawyer at the time of the contract negotiations, along with all the government employees connected with the program, testified that a permanent work of art was to be chosen, built and installed at this site. The argument was not only that Serra was given an explicit oral promise of permanency, but also that the GSA’s policy, usage and practice implied that his sculpture would not be altered or distorted. Serra contends that this promise of permanency was a valid and enforceable oral agreement intended or implied as part of his contract, and that removal and/or relocation of the sculpture constitutes a breach of contract.”