Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 107 (Mar)
Neutral Citation: [2002] EWHC 294 (QB)
Court: Queen's Bench Division

Buckley J

Representation Joe Smouha (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the claimant.
  Charles Flint QC and John McCaughran (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 8 March 2002


Contract - Express terms - Sale of painting - Claimant purchasing painting from defendant - Defendant of opinion painting by van Dyck - Claimant subsequently advised painting not by van Dyck - Whether express or implied term painting by van Dyck - Whether defendant misrepresenting that painting by van Dyck.

The Case

Where the claimant purchased a painting from the defendant, believing it to be a van Dyck, and where the defendant honestly believed it to be a van Dyck on the basis of research and a number of expert opinions, but pointed out that a leading expert disagreed with that view, and it later turned out that the painting was a studio work and not a genuine van Dyck, it was held, dismissing the claim, that it was neither an express nor an implied term of the contract of sale that the painting was by van Dyck since no reasonable buyer could suppose that the defendant knew, as opposed merely to hold the opinion, that the painting was by van Dyck, and that there had been no misrepresentation on the part of the defendant that the painting was a genuine van Dyck.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.