A claim was brought against a firm of fine art auctioneers outside London who failed to spot that two small paintings of foxhounds might in fact be the work of the celebrated painter of animals George Stubbs. The paintings, which had been very dirty and overpainted when assessed by the auctioneer, were given a reserve price of pounds 40 for the pair and sold for pounds 840. They were subsequently sold as being by Stubbs for pounds 88,000.
Held: The auctioneer’s appeal succeeded.
The two pictures had initially been consigned by the claimants to the auctioneer ‘for research’. Slade LJ held that this term had no standard, recognised meaning but that in the context of that case the duty of the auction house was: ‘to express a considered opinion as to the sale value of the foxhound pictures, and for this purpose to take further appropriate advice.’
The Court then considered what was the standard of skill and care which the plaintiff had the right to expect of the auction house in the discharge of their duties. Each member of the Court emphasised that the defendant was a provincial auction house and not a leading London house. In the leading judgment Slade LJ referred to the analogy with the distinction in the medical world between general practitioners and specialists.
Slade LJ regarded the defendants as akin to ‘general practitioners’ rather than ‘specialists’ and held that the standard of skill and care required of them was to be judged only by reference to what may be expected of a general practitioner. He also warned against assessing the defendant’s behaviour with the benefit of hindsight and set out an important rider: ‘The valuation of pictures of which the artist is unknown, pre-eminently involves an exercise of opinion and judgment, most particularly in deciding whether an attribution to any particular artist should be made. Since it is not an exact science, the judgment in the very nature of things may be fallible, and may turn out to be wrong. Accordingly, provided that the valuer has done his job honestly and with due diligence, I think that the court should be cautious before convicting him of professional negligence merely because he has failed to be the first to spot a ‘sleeper’ or the potentiality of a ‘sleeper’: . . ‘
Judges:
Slade LJ, Mann LJ, Sir David Croom-Johnson
Citations:
[1990] 1 WLR 1009
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Thwaytes v Sotheby’s ChD 16-Jan-2015
The claimant had sold a painting through the defendant auctioneers. He sought damages after it was certified to be an original rather than copy Caravaggio painting, and worth very substantially more. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Professional Negligence
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.648602
