## Facts

- Mr. Marcq consigned a painting to Christie Manson & Woods (the auctioneer) for auction.
- The painting, unbeknownst to Mr. Marcq, was stolen property.
- Christie Manson & Woods proceeded to auction the painting, and it was later revealed to the buyer that the work was stolen.
- The dispute centered on whether the auctioneer had exercised dominion over the painting without proper authority, exposing them to liability for conversion.
- The case addressed the extent of an auctioneer's fiduciary and legal duties in verifying provenance and consignment authority before selling goods.

## Issues

1. Whether an auctioneer who sells goods without proper authority exercises dominion sufficient to amount to the tort of conversion.
2. Whether auctioneers’ fiduciary duties to consignors include verifying the provenance and ownership of consigned goods.
3. What standard of due diligence and care is required of auctioneers under law to avoid liability for selling stolen goods.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that Christie Manson & Woods, by selling the painting without appropriate authority, had exercised dominion inconsistent with the rights of the consignor.
- This conduct constituted conversion and rendered the auctioneer liable for the tort.
- The court clarified that auctioneers must verify provenance and ensure legal authority before acting as agents in the sale of goods.
- Breaching these duties by inadequate checks or disregarding the risk of lack of title exposes the auctioneer to liability.

## Legal Principles

- Exercising dominion over goods without proper authority (such as selling stolen property) constitutes the tort of conversion.
- Auctioneers owe fiduciary duties to consignors, including acting in good faith and with reasonable care, particularly concerning provenance verification and ownership.
- Due diligence is essential; auctioneers must take reasonable steps to verify the consignor's right to sell and check for third-party claims or liens.
- Legal standards established in this case align with earlier authorities, such as Hollins v Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757 and Consolidated Co v Curtis & Son [1892] 1 QB 495, holding auctioneers to a high standard of care.

## Conclusion

Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2004] QB 286 clarifies that auctioneers who exercise dominion over goods without verifying proper authority can be liable for conversion. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of rigorous due diligence and upholding fiduciary responsibilities to avoid liability when handling consigned property.
