An Object Lesson in Speculation: Multiple Views of the Cathedral in Leaf v. International Galleries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leaf v. International Galleries is an English case dealing with the doctrine of innocent misrepresentation in contract law. Mr Leaf bought an oil painting of Salisbury Cathedral from International Galleries in 1944 for £85 on the representation that it was an authentic picture by the famous English painter John Constable. When he tried to sell it five years later to Christie's auction house, he was told that it was not in fact a Constable. International Galleries stood by its claim of authenticity. The trial judge found as fact that the painting was not authentic. Lord Denning held at the Court of Appeal that Mr Leaf might well have asked for damages for breach of a warranty that the painting was a real Constable; however, he did not do so, and his request to amend the pleadings to that effect was denied. What Leaf did ask for was equitable relief under the doctrine of innocent misrepresentation by way of rescission ( i.e. , that he be allowed to return the painting and recover his £85). Leaf's claim was denied on the grounds that five years was too long after the transaction to rescind it. Scholars who discuss the case wrestle with the odd fact that £85 seems an extremely low price to pay for an authentic painting by John Constable, and various ways of responding to this have worked their way into the treatment of the case. However, it turns out that £85 might have been a perfectly reasonable price to pay for particular Constables in 1944. This article explores how assumptions like this perfectly ordinary one about the value of a real Constable in the Leaf case can lead us astray. The 'object lesson in speculation,' which I use the Leaf case to demonstrate, is the trap that legal teachers and scholars often fall into because we do not engage in actual investigation of what happened in law school casebook cases. At the same time, however, such investigation sits uncomfortably with the role and function of cases in the common law, which uses reported appellate cases in a very specific way. This article is an investigation of this problem, approached through the lens of the Leaf case.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».