Robinson v Graves [1935] 1 KB 579 is a significant English contract law case that distinguishes between contracts for the sale of goods and contracts for work and labour.
Parties Involved: William Howard Robinson (plaintiff, a portrait painter) and Frederick Beresford Johnston Graves (defendant).
Date: 01 March 1935, Court of Appeal (England and Wales).
Citation: [1935] 1 KB 579
Facts (Robinson v Graves)
The defendant orally commissioned the plaintiff to paint a three-quarter-length portrait of a lady (who later became the defendant’s wife) for 250 guineas. Although the parties initially agreed that half of the 250 guineas fee (i.e., 125 guineas) would be paid upfront, this was later reduced to 100 guineas.
After the plaintiff began the work and the lady had given a sitting, the defendant repudiated the contract before the portrait was completed.
The defendant denied that he had given a commission to the plaintiff to paint the portrait or had agreed to pay the plaintiff 250 guineas therefor.
The plaintiff sued to recover the agreed price.
Legal Issue that Arose
The central question was whether the contract was for the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, requiring a written agreement for enforcement, or a contract for work and labour, which could be enforced without a written document.
It was analyzed that though oral contracts for the sale of goods are generally enforceable. However, Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 required a written note or memorandum for contracts involving goods over £10 to be enforceable.
The defendant argued that the contract was for the sale of goods and, lacking a written agreement, was unenforceable under the Act.
Judgement in Robinson v Graves
The Court of Appeal held that the contract was for work and labour, not for the sale of goods. The court reasoned that the essence of the contract was the application of the artist’s skill and labour in creating the portrait, and the materials (paint and canvas) were merely ancillary. Therefore, the contract did not fall under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, and the plaintiff could recover the agreed price despite the absence of a written contract.
Legal Significance
This case is pivotal in distinguishing between contracts for the sale of goods and contracts for services involving skill and labour. It established that when the primary objective of a contract is the application of skill and labour, and the transfer of goods is incidental, the contract is considered one of work and labour.
List of references:
- https://www.studocu.com/row/document/uganda-christian-university/mercantile-law-1/robinson-vs-graves-19351-kb-579/117424754
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/18166-sample.pdf
- https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/29260-sample.pdf
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- WJ Alan v El Nasr [1972] EWCA Civ 12
- Teacher v Calder: The Validity of Audits in Business Contracts
- Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace: Enforceability of Promises
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.