000			01006cab a2200205 4500
001			WB2602-24
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u52288
041			_aeng
245			_aSale of Goods Act 1979
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEGCS _v1989 176
520			_aIn 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.
650			_aART DEALER
650			_aFORGERY
690			_aLAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c32427 _d32427