000			01649cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS66860
008			030710n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u122976
100			_aHudson, A.
245			_aAttribution of paintings and sale by description
260			_c2003
490			_aArt Antiquity and Law _v8(2) June 2003, 201-208(9)
520			_aDiscusses "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.
590			_aABS
650			_aDRAKE V THOMAS AGNEW AND SONS LTD
650			_aAUCTIONEERS
650			_aPAINTING
650			_aSALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 S13
650			_aMISDESCRIPTION
650			_aMISREPRESENTATION
690			_aANTIQUES AND FINE ART-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c73027 _d73027