Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2004] QB 286

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal