Edgar v Hector
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1912 |
| Date | 20 January 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 58. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Mackenzie, Lord President, Lord Kinnear, Lord Johnston.
ErrorEssential error induced by misrepresentationsSaleRescissionError as to substance of articles soldModern imitations of antique furniture.
A dealer in modern and antique furniture sold to a customer ten ribbon-backed chairs, which he described in a receipt for part payment of the price as a set of antique mahogany chairs, but which proved not to be genuine antiques, but to be modern imitations. The price stipulated was a fair price for the articles actually sold. The seller gave no history of the chairs or guarantee that they were antique, but he made certain representations, held not to be fraudulent, which induced the buyer to believe that he was buying a set of old chairs.
Circumstances where held that there had been such misrepresentation as to the substance of the articles sold as to entitle the buyer to rescind the contract.
In June 1911 Melvin Edgar, a furniture dealer in Glasgow, brought an action in the Sheriff Court there against William Cunningham Hector, an artist, in which he claimed payment of the balance of the price of a set of chairs, sold by him to the defender at a price of 145, to account of which the defender had paid 95.
In answer the defender stated that the chairs in question were sold to him on the representation that they were genuine antique chairs of a period, and at least 100 years old; but that after delivery, and after making the payment to account of their price, he had discovered that the chairs were modern faked chairs, made within the last three to five years, and so treated as to have the appearance of being old chairs, and that he had consequently rejected them. He also stated a counter claim for the 95 which he had paid to account of the price.
A proof was allowed and led. The following narrative of the facts established at the proof is taken from the opinion of Lord Mackenzie:
The pursuer carries on business in Glasgow, and designs himself as a dealer in antiques. On 18th May 1910 he sold to the defender six small and two arm ribbon-back mahogany chairs at the price of 120; the defender agreed to pay the pursuer a further sum of 25 if the pursuer could procure for him two additional small chairs. On the same date the pursuer handed the defender a memorandum in these terms:241 Eglinton Street, Glasgow, 18th May 1910.From Edgar's Antique Stores, Dealer in Furniture, Curios, Gold and Silver Watches, Rings and Jewellery of every description.Bought of M. Edgar, set mahogany chairs, 6 small, 2 arms, for 120. William C. Hector, 164 Bath Street. Same as two shown. When the defender agreed to buy the chairs he had only seen two of them, an armchair and a small chair, these being all that there were in the pursuer's shop. The chairs were sold without a guarantee that they were antique. On 1st June the pursuer delivered ten chairs to the defender, and was paid 95 to account of the price. The pursuer granted a receipt in these terms:Received 95 in part payment of 145 for set Antique Mahogany Chairs. June 1st, 1910. (Signed) M. Edgar. On 4th June he called on the defender for payment of the balance of 50. Between the 1st and 4th of June the defender had ascertained, what has been proved to be the fact, that the chairs were not antique, but were reproductions, and refused to make payment.
Evidence was also led to the effect that the chairs in question were purchased by the pursuer from William Bissett, another furniture dealer in Glasgow, who in turn had procured them from a firm in London, who manufacture such articles. Bissett, in the first instance, so procured eight chairs, two of which, supplied by him to the pursuer for the purpose of exhibition and sale, were those originally seen by the defender. He subsequently procured two more from the same source. Bissett gave no history of the chairs to the pursuer, and warned him not to sell them as antiques.
The defender's evidence as to the representation made to him by the pursuer at an interview on the 18th of May, was as follows:He told me that he found he could only give me eight chairs, because the people who had them had sold two of them to somebody else. I asked him if he would allow me to call and examine the remainder of the set and he told me the people had sent down two, an armchair and a small chair, and we would have one of each to examine in the shop, as they did not want people coming about and looking at the chairs. He told me that I would get the chairs at the end of May. I told him why I thought it important to see the whole set of chairs. I thought it was unsatisfactory seeing the two, because some of the others might be broken and might be replaced by some reproductions. The pursuer told me he had examined them all himself, and that he could answer for them. In the course of discussion about the chairs the pursuer spoke to me of the fineness of the carving, and he said that we could not get such work done nowadays, and if we could we could not get the class of wood to do it, and that we could not get men to do it. He said we could not get either the men to do it or the work. He also told me that he thought that they were very fine chairs, and they ought to be put in a museum, because they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd & Forrest v Glasgow & South Western Railway Company
...(1858) 3 De G. & J. 304; Mair v. Rio Grande Rubber Estates, Limited, 1913 S. C. (H. L.) 74, per Lord Shaw, at p. 82; Edgar v. Hector, 1912 S. C. 348; Anderson v. Croall & Sons, LimitedSC, (1903) 6 F. 153. 4 Ersk. Prin., (21st ed.) p. 291. 5 Bell's Prin., sec. 538. 6 Steuart's Trustees v. Ha......
-
Fletcher v Lord Advocate
...in interfering with his discretion. The Court adhered. 1 Kennedy v. Panama, &c., Mail Co.ELR, (1867) L. R., 2 Q. B. 580; Edgar v. Hector, 1912 S. C. 348; Westville Shipping Co. v. Abram Steamship Co., 1922 S. C. 571; Bell's Prin., (10th ed.) sec. 2 Stewart v. Kennedy, (1890) 17 R. (H. L.) 2......