Discusses "Drake v Thos Agnew and Sons Ltd" ([2002] EWHC 294 (QB), unreported) concerning the attribution of a painting and sale by description. Claimant D purchased an oil painting from defendant (A) through agent (C) for £1 500 000. D alleged that the painting was sold as a painting by Van Dyck and brought a claim for damages against A. Issues arose concerning the terms of the contract of sale. Was it a sale description as it was referred to by A as being by Van Dyck or did it come within the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 s13 as argued by D? The brochure and letter supplied by A to C, which C failed to pass onto D, set out the argument and opinion and quoted contrary views over authenticity of painting. "Held" that there was no term in the contract that the painting was by Van Dyck and was therefore not a sale by description within s13 of the Act. Highlights the pitfalls of bringing alleged mis-attribution legal action on the basis of misdescription and misrepresentation.