Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
CAVEAT EMPTOR BEWARE?
Thomson
v. Christie Manson & Woods
The so-called ‘‘sexing up’’ of information for public presentation seems to be very much à la mode
. But, whilst the Hutton and Butler Reports largely exonerated the Government from blame over WMD intelligence, the decision of Jack J in Thomson
v. Christie Manson & Woods Ltd
1
will send shivers down the spines of auctioneers everywhere. Although the learned judge’s decision was expressly stated to be limited to the particular facts of this case,2
it represents a further unwarranted erosion of the fundamental principle of caveat emptor
—‘‘let the buyer beware’’. Unsurprisingly, given the enormous potential impact on the commercial practices of auctioneers, Christie’s are expected to appeal.
The case arose out of the hugely successful ‘‘Houghton sale’’, which took place at Christie’s London auction rooms in December 1994. One of the lots—described in Christie’s catalogue as ‘‘a pair of Louis XV porphyry and gilt-bronze two handled vases’’—was purchased by the claimant, Ms Thomson, for £1,750,000. Ms Thomson subsequently heard rumours that the so-called ‘‘Houghton urns’’ possibly dated from the 19th century (as opposed to the reign of Louis XV). After protracted correspondence, Ms Thomson brought several claims against Christie’s and the vendor, Lord Cholmondeley, on the basis that the urns dated from only the 19th century and were only worth approximately £30,000. By the conclusion of the trial, these claims had been whittled down to just two. The claimant sought: (1) damages for breach of a common law duty of care; or (2) rescission or damages for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1).
Every undergraduate tort student should be familiar with Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd
v. Heller & Partners
3
and the subsequent development of this pocket of tortious liability for pure economic loss. A claimant who enjoys a ‘‘special relationship’’ with the defendant (such that the defendant can be said to have ‘‘assumed responsibility’’ towards the claimant in respect of the alleged loss) can recover damages for loss caused by reasonable reliance upon a negligent misstatement or provision of services. In the present case, Ms Thomson had been given the status of a ‘‘special client’’ and had received assistance and advice from Christie’s in advance of the auction. Wisely, therefore, counsel for Christie’s conceded at trial that this special relationship with Ms Thomson gave rise to a duty ‘‘to use reasonable skill and care in describing the Houghton urns as Louis XV’’.4
The learned judge came to the conclusion that there was no breach of this duty. By describing the Houghton urns as ‘‘Louis XV’’, Christie’s expressed ‘‘an opinion which an auctioneer of their standing could reasonably reach’’.5
Where Jack J’s judgment rides into controversy is in his extension of the scope of the duty of care owed by Christie’s to Ms Thomson as a result of her ‘‘special client’’ status. It should be remembered that Christie’s would not even owe a Hedley Byrne
duty of care without a ‘‘special relationship’’ of sufficient proximity. Yet Jack J took Christie’s
CASE AND COMMENT
443