Sale of Goods Act 1979
Language: English Series: EGCS ; 1989 176Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: In Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd , CA 15 December 1989, it was held that although a sale of a painting attributed to a named artist should be a sale by description and within Sale of Goods Act 1979 s13(1) , on the facts found by the trial judge the description of the artist was not relied on by the buyer in making the offer to purchase. The judge was entitled to so find. For the purpose of section 14 the appellants bought the painting for resale; on the facts the circumstances were such that there was no breach of the implied contract.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2602-24 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 52288-1001 |
In Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd , CA 15 December 1989, it was held that although a sale of a painting attributed to a named artist should be a sale by description and within Sale of Goods Act 1979 s13(1) , on the facts found by the trial judge the description of the artist was not relied on by the buyer in making the offer to purchase. The judge was entitled to so find. For the purpose of section 14 the appellants bought the painting for resale; on the facts the circumstances were such that there was no breach of the implied contract.