000			01472cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS40058
008			090401t1988 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u21099
041			_aeng
245			_aLuxmoore-May v Messenger May Baverstock
260			_c1988
350			_a0
490			_aNew Law Journal _v138(6385) 2 December 1988, 341-342(2)
520			_aQDB 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.
650			_aNEGLIGENCE
690			_aAuctioneering _96218
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c14159 _d14159