Thomson v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd and Another: QBD 2004

Two urns had been auctioned as ‘a pair of Louis XV porphyry and gilt-bronze two-handled vases’. The buyer claimed that this was false. The parties agreed Christie’s had impliedly represented that it had reasonable grounds for its opinion.
Held: Jack J said: ‘The representation is not simply that the urns were Louis XV because that is a matter of opinion. The representation is that that was Christie’s opinion and that Christie’s had reasonable grounds for that opinion. This approach was not in issue between Ms Thomson and Christie’s and in my view is sound in principle’.


Jack J


[2004] EWHC 1101 (QB), [2004] PNLR 42


England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromThomson v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd and Another CA 12-May-2005
Claim against auctioneers – antique vases – possible copies. Both parties appealed against elements of the judgment. . .
CitedAvrora Fine Arts Investment Ltd v Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd ChD 27-Jul-2012
The claimants had bought a painting (Odalisque) through the defendant auctioneers. They now claimed that it had been misattributed to Kustodiev, and claimed in negligence and misrepresentation.
Held: Based on the connoisseurship evidence, the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Professional Negligence

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.463308