Luxmoore-May and another v Messenger May Baverstock (a firm)
Language: English Series: All England Law Reports ; (1990) 1 All ER 1067-1084(18)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 21 December 1989. Appeal by the auctioneers (M) against a decision in favour of L, which held that M were negligent in a valuation of two paintings ; valued at between £30 and £50. They were sold at auction on behalf of L for £840. Five months later they re-appeared on the market and were sold as paintings by Stubbs at £88,000. The appeal was allowed; M had not been negligent. Valuation of pictures was not an exact science and the question, had the paintings the potential to be Stubbs paintings, was something that competent valuers could have widely differing views about. As the evidence did not justify the judges conclusion that no competent valuer could have failed to spot that the paintings could possibly have been by Stubbs, negligence on the part of M could not be established.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42799 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 38862-1001 |
CA 21 December 1989. Appeal by the auctioneers (M) against a decision in favour of L, which held that M were negligent in a valuation of two paintings ; valued at between £30 and £50. They were sold at auction on behalf of L for £840. Five months later they re-appeared on the market and were sold as paintings by Stubbs at £88,000. The appeal was allowed; M had not been negligent. Valuation of pictures was not an exact science and the question, had the paintings the potential to be Stubbs paintings, was something that competent valuers could have widely differing views about. As the evidence did not justify the judges conclusion that no competent valuer could have failed to spot that the paintings could possibly have been by Stubbs, negligence on the part of M could not be established.