May v Vincent
May v Vincent
- 1991
- Estates Gazette (1991) 04 EG 144-152(3) .
QBD 11 June 1990. On 21 April 1989 the trading standards officer (M) claimed the respondent (V) had wrongly described a water colour painting in an auction catalogue under Trades Description Act 1968 s1 . The case was held at the Petty Session and it was held that two customers (S) read the catalogue which described Lot 345 as "JMW Turner RA a watercolour of moorland, stream, bridge and people unframed" and contacted the auctioneers to authorise a bid of £700. The sale took place on 26 October 1986 and S was successful at £400. The picture was later found not to be by JMW Turner and V agreed the painting was therefore worthless however there was a comprehensive disclaimer at the front of the catalogue in the guise of a quote from Misrepresentation Act 1967 . The Crown Court held that the disclaimer doctrine did not apply to the art world and artistic products and V had only acted as an agent for the true seller. The case went to QBD where it was held that the doctrine of disclaimer h
CASE LAW
QBD 11 June 1990. On 21 April 1989 the trading standards officer (M) claimed the respondent (V) had wrongly described a water colour painting in an auction catalogue under Trades Description Act 1968 s1 . The case was held at the Petty Session and it was held that two customers (S) read the catalogue which described Lot 345 as "JMW Turner RA a watercolour of moorland, stream, bridge and people unframed" and contacted the auctioneers to authorise a bid of £700. The sale took place on 26 October 1986 and S was successful at £400. The picture was later found not to be by JMW Turner and V agreed the painting was therefore worthless however there was a comprehensive disclaimer at the front of the catalogue in the guise of a quote from Misrepresentation Act 1967 . The Crown Court held that the disclaimer doctrine did not apply to the art world and artistic products and V had only acted as an agent for the true seller. The case went to QBD where it was held that the doctrine of disclaimer h
CASE LAW