In this case, Lindholm entrusted her painting to Malmberg by authorizing the museum to release the painting to him. He then sold it as a merchant in the ordinary course of business. If Lindholm had not entrusted it to Malmberg, but Malmberg instead had used a fake document to convince the museum to release it to him, and then had sold it to Brant, who was a good faith purchaser, Lindberg:

Lindholm could have recovered the painting because Malmberg had void title.

Explanation:

This is a real case that happened in year 2000, where Lindholm authorized Malmberg to obtain the painting from the museum and then Malmberg illegally sold the painting to Brant. When Lindholm tried to recover the painting, the court stated that since Malmberg was an art dealer and he had received authorization from Lindholm to obtain the painting (he was supposed to take it to a Louisiana Museum), then when Brant purchased the painted as a good faith buyer, Malmberg had good title of the painting.

Malmberg's title over the painting was voidable, but since he sold the painting before Lindholm voided the title, it was considered good title at the moment of the selling.

Later Malmberg was convicted to 3 years in jail for fraud and forced to pay $4.9 million to Lindholm, but Lindholm was never able to recover the painting.

If Malmberg had forged documents to obtain the painting, he would have never had good title (a voidable title provides good title until voided) since he would have always had void title. Only then, could Lindholm have recovered the painting from Brant.

answer; /// radio frequency identification;

answer; ///hong kong;