Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86
Facts
Leaf bought a painting from International Galleries after it was innocently attributed to John Constable. He retained it for five years before discovering that the attribution was incorrect. He then sought to return the picture and recover its price. The transaction involved the very painting the parties had selected, so the error concerned its authorship rather than substitution of a different object. The court considered whether the buyer could unwind the sale after that interval. The litigation predated the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and must be understood against the remedial rules then in force.
Legal Issue
Could the buyer rescind the completed sale for an innocent attribution error after retaining the painting for five years, and did the mistake make the sale void?
Held
The Court of Appeal refused rescission after the buyer had retained the painting for five years. The innocent attribution error did not make the sale void for mistake: the parties had agreed on the particular picture, although they were wrong about its artist. The judgments treated the lengthy lapse of time and the completed sale as obstacles to the relief sought under the law then applicable. The decision must be read historically. Section 1 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 later removed performance of the contract and incorporation of the representation as a term as automatic bars to rescission. Delay can remain relevant, but the case does not establish that accepting goods defeats every modern misrepresentation claim.
⭐ Legal Principle
Leaf illustrates refusal of rescission for an innocent misrepresentation after prolonged retention and distinguishes mistaken attributes from absence of agreement on the item sold. Its pre-1967 reasoning about completed contracts requires qualification under the Misrepresentation Act 1967; delay and other recognised bars need separate analysis.
Significance
Leaf is useful for explaining why rescission is not indefinitely available and why a mistaken attribution does not necessarily make an art sale void. It is also a warning about relying on older cases without accounting for legislation. The modern question is not answered by saying that the sale was completed or the representation became a term. Identify the requested remedy, the timing of discovery and action, any affirmation or intervening rights, and the statutory framework before drawing a conclusion.
Common exam questions about this case
Why was the identity of the picture different from its attribution?
The parties contracted for the physical painting before them. Their error concerned who had painted it, an attribute affecting value, rather than which item was being sold. That distinction prevented the mistaken attribution from automatically establishing that no agreement existed at all.
Does completion of a sale now automatically bar rescission?
No. Section 1 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 removed completion as an automatic obstacle, together with the fact that the representation became a term. Other bars can still arise. Leaf's historical reasoning must therefore be qualified before it is used to answer a modern problem.
Why can lapse of time still matter?
Rescission is subject to limits that protect settled transactions and affected rights. Delay must be examined with the nature of the misrepresentation, discovery, subsequent conduct and the relevant legal rules. Leaf illustrates the problem of prolonged retention; it does not provide a universal fixed deadline for every claim.