Leaf v International Galleries
The right to rescind a contract for innocent misrepresentation can be lost by lapse of time.
Facts
In 1944 Mr Leaf bought a painting of Salisbury Cathedral from International Galleries for £85. The gallery represented that it was by John Constable. Five years later, when Mr Leaf tried to sell it, he was told that it was not by Constable. He sought to rescind the contract and recover the price, but did not claim damages.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Leaf could not rescind. The mistake about the painting's authorship was a mistake as to quality, which did not make the contract void. The representation that it was a Constable was an innocent misrepresentation, which would ordinarily allow rescission, but the right to rescind for innocent misrepresentation is lost if not exercised within a reasonable time. Since Mr Leaf had had five years to examine the painting, it was too late. Denning LJ also reasoned that, because Mr Leaf would have lost his right to reject the painting for breach of condition after a reasonable time, it would be odd if he could still rescind for innocent misrepresentation.
Related cases on misrepresentation
- Attwood v Small (1838) 6 Cl & F 232
- Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177
- Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell [1965] 1 QB 525
- Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Dimmock v Hallett (1866) LR 2 Ch App 21
- Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459
- Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801
- Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
Studying contract law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
