Arthur grace, a world-renowned photo-journalist, had an agreement with sygma-paris and sygma-new york whereby grace turned well over 40,000 of his photographic images to sygma, and sygma agreed to act as grace’s agent to license the images and administer the fee-setting process and delivery and return of the images. grace terminated his agreement with sygma, and sygma was unable to return all of the photographs to grace as obligated under the agreement. from sygma’s perspective it was a nightmare to keep track of all of the images. identify the legal classification of this transaction and the status of the principals. did grace have a legal basis to sue sygma for the value of the images it failed to return? [grace v. corbis sygma, 403 f. supp. 2d (s. d.n. y.)]