ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition

First round problem, 2003-2004

Lucan v Art International Ltd.
In The Court of Appeal

Lucan found a painting in the attic of the family home which, together with its contents, he has just inherited. Lucan took the painting to an art expert who identified it as a painting entitled "Deer at Bay" by Landseer. The expert valued the painting at £130,000. Lucan told a friend of his, a reporter at the local newspaper, the Beaconsfield Bugle, about what had happened. The next week the newspaper reported what had occurred under the headline: "Local Man In Big Art Find".

Mould, the managing director of Art international, read the newspiece. He thought that the art expert had grossly undervalued the work which he knew had been in Lucan's family some years ago. Mould decided to offer on Art International's behalf to buy the painting, being confident that he could make a quick and easy profit on its resale.

On the 30th of June Mould wrote as follows to Lucan:

"Art International hereby offers you the sum of £130,000 for the purchase of the painting whose discovery was reported in this week's Bugle. Please send your acceptance of this offer to the registered office of this company."

Lucan immediately posted a letter of acceptance of the offer. The letter was posted to Art International's registered office but for some unknown reason it did not arrive there for a fortnight, arriving on 13th July.

A day before they received Lucan's letter, Mould read the following news item under the headline: "Local Man in Big Art Error". The news item indicated that the painting discovered by Lucan was not by Landseer but by a hitherto unknown artist. As such it was worth no more than the value of its frame.

Mould immediately sent a fax to Lucan revoking Art International's offer. That fax was read by Lucan at 5pm on 12th July. Subsequently, Lucan, who claimed that there was a binding contract between him and Art International for the sale of £130,000 of the painting which he had discovered in the attic, sought unsuccessfully to deliver that painting to Art International. On each occasion, Art International refused to accept the painting or to pay for it.

In an action for the agreed sum under the contract by Lucan against Art International, the trial judge, Turner J., held that there was no contract between Lucan and Art International because:

(a) Art International's revocation of its offer was effective before there had been an effective acceptance by Lucan; and

(b) Even if that was not so, the mistake under which the parties were labouring was such as to render any apparent contract void and unenforceable.

Lucan now appeals both points to the Court of Appeal.

« back