000			01338cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS42799
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u38862
041			_aeng
245			_aLuxmoore-May and another v Messenger May Baverstock (a firm)
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aAll England Law Reports _v(1990) 1 All ER 1067-1084(18)
520			_aCA 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.
650			_aArts and antiques _96217
650			_aSLEEPER
690			_aRATING AND VALUATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c24927 _d24927