Juliet is a well$-$known art collector and gallerist. Tracey, a sculptor just starting out, heard that Juliet would store some of her work in the gallery so that people could see it as they looked at other art Juliet had in her possession. Tracey and Juliet decided to do just that, but never drew up any paperwork that made it clear Juliet did not own the sculptures entrusted to her. Juliet is also a little forgetful, and a couple years after accepting Tracey's sculptures for display only, a wealthy art collector, Beatrice, made an offer Juliet could not refuse for two of Tracey's sculptures. A year after this, Tracey had built up her portfolio to the point of attracting attention for a larger show. She returns to Juliet to collect her work and is appalled to learn that Juliet sold some of her sculptures to Beatrice! If the jurisdiction where this takes place follows the UCC as adopted by Rhode Island in $1997,$ will Tracey be able to recover her sculptures from Beatrice?

No$,$ because Juliet was a well$-$known gallerist, she is considered a merchant under UCC $2-104,$ and she deals in goods of the kind at issue here $($art$).$ Tracey took the risk that Juliet would act unscrupulously by selling to an innocent purchaser, and Beatrice had no way of knowing that the sculptures were merely possessed by$,$ not owned by$,$ Juliet. Beatrice has good title. The only remedy for Tracey is for damages against Juliet.

No$,$ because the arrangement between Juliet and Tracey was never well defined, the default rule is Juliet had voidable title. As long as Beatrice was a good$-$faith purchaser $($we know she purchased for value$)$ she took good title.

Yes, Juliet will be restored to possession of her sculptures because of UCC $2-508.$

Yes, Juliet never had any kind of title to pass, so Beatrice does not have superior title to the goods compared to Tracey.