Leaf v International Galleries
Encyclopedia
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86 is an English contract law
case concerning rescission for mistake and innocent misrepresentation.
" by John Constable
was what Ernest Louis Leaf thought he was buying on March 8, 1944 from International Galleries. International Galleries said it was a Constable. Leaf paid £85. Five years later when he tried to auction it, Leaf was told that it was not a Constable. He claimed rescission of the contract against International Galleries, to get back his money.
Jenkins LJ and Lord Evershed MR concurred.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case concerning rescission for mistake and innocent misrepresentation.
Facts
"Salisbury CathedralSalisbury Cathedral
Salisbury Cathedral, formally known as the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is an Anglican cathedral in Salisbury, England, considered one of the leading examples of Early English architecture....
" by John Constable
John Constable
John Constable was an English Romantic painter. Born in Suffolk, he is known principally for his landscape paintings of Dedham Vale, the area surrounding his home—now known as "Constable Country"—which he invested with an intensity of affection...
was what Ernest Louis Leaf thought he was buying on March 8, 1944 from International Galleries. International Galleries said it was a Constable. Leaf paid £85. Five years later when he tried to auction it, Leaf was told that it was not a Constable. He claimed rescission of the contract against International Galleries, to get back his money.
Judgment
Denning LJ held that Mr Leaf was barred because too much time had lapsed. He held that in the event of a lapse of time between the making of the contract and the decision to rescind, the right to rescind is lost. He held there was a mistake about the quality of the subject-matter, because both parties believed the picture to be a Constable; and that mistake was in one sense essential or fundamental. But that was not enough to avoid the contract, because there was no mistake about essential subject matter (a painting). The painter’s identity was a term of the contract, which could either be classified as a condition (breach of which allows rejection of the picture) or a warranty (which allows damages only). Here the painter’s identity was a condition, but after hanging it in one’s house for five years it is far too late to reject the picture for breach of condition.Jenkins LJ and Lord Evershed MR concurred.
External links
- D Alberge, 'Michelangelo at the Met? Sotheby's painting claimed to be by Renaissance genius' (15.4.2010) The GuardianThe GuardianThe Guardian, formerly known as The Manchester Guardian , is a British national daily newspaper in the Berliner format...