Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Baverstock
Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Baverstock
- 1988
- New Law Journal 138(6385) 2 December 1988, 341-342(2) .
QDB 22 November 1988. The plaintiffs (L) owned two small paintings of foxhounds and in 1985 they invited the defendant auctioneers (M) to place a value on them. Representatives of M valued the pictures at between £30-£50 the pair, so they were entered in the next auction with a reserve price of £40. Shortly before the auction one of M`s representatives took the paintings to Christie`s for a second opinion. They were handed over the front desk; after 10 minutes they were handed back with the information that they were not worth a lot. At the auction two dealers bid in competition and pushed the price to £840. Five months later they were sold as paintings by Stubbs for £90,000. L brought the action to claim the difference between the two sale prices. It was held that M should not have fixed confidently on their valuation of £30-£50 without further investigation and that the one trip to Christie`s cannot constitute a proper and sufficient research. Judgment given for the plaintiffs.
NEGLIGENCE
QDB 22 November 1988. The plaintiffs (L) owned two small paintings of foxhounds and in 1985 they invited the defendant auctioneers (M) to place a value on them. Representatives of M valued the pictures at between £30-£50 the pair, so they were entered in the next auction with a reserve price of £40. Shortly before the auction one of M`s representatives took the paintings to Christie`s for a second opinion. They were handed over the front desk; after 10 minutes they were handed back with the information that they were not worth a lot. At the auction two dealers bid in competition and pushed the price to £840. Five months later they were sold as paintings by Stubbs for £90,000. L brought the action to claim the difference between the two sale prices. It was held that M should not have fixed confidently on their valuation of £30-£50 without further investigation and that the one trip to Christie`s cannot constitute a proper and sufficient research. Judgment given for the plaintiffs.
NEGLIGENCE