The defendant auctioneer advertised in the London papers that certain brewing materials, plant, and office furniture would be sold by him at Bury St Edmunds on a certain day and two following days. The plaintiff, a commission broker in London, having a commission to buy the office furniture, went down to the sale; on the third day, on which the furniture was advertised for sale, all the lots of furniture were withdrawn. Upon which the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover for his loss of time and expenses. Held, that plaintiff could not maintain the action : for that the advertising the sale was a mere declaration and did not amount to a contract with any one who might act upon it, nor to a warranty that all the articles advertised would be put up for sale.
Blackburn J said: ‘In the case of Warlow v. Harrison, the opinion of the majority of the judges in the Exchequer Chamber appears to have been that an action would lie for not knocking down the lot to the highest bona fide bidder when the sale was advertised as without reserve; in such a case it may be that there is a contract to sell to the highest bidder, and that if the owner bids there is a breach of contract.’
Quain J said: ‘When a sale is advertised as without reserve, and a lot is put up and bid for, there is ground for saying, as was said in Warlow v. Harrison, that a contract is entered into between the auctioneer and the highest bona fide bidder.’
Judges:
Blackburn J, Quain J
Citations:
(1873) LR 8 QB 286, [1873] UKLawRpKQB 34
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Warlow v Harrison CExC 26-Nov-1859
Unless public notice of this was given, a bid from the seller himself was fraudulent. He appealed against rejection of his claim against the auctioneer.
Held: The appeal failed on the existing pleadings, but said that the plaintiff might . .
Cited by:
Cited – Blackpool and Fylde Aero Club Ltd v Blackpool Borough Council CA 25-May-1990
The club had enjoyed a concession from the council to operate pleasure flights from the airport operated by the council. They were invited to bid for a new concession subject to strict tender rules. They submitted the highest bid on time, but the . .
Cited – Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others CA 27-Jul-2000
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale.
Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or . .
Cited – Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others CA 27-Jul-2000
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale.
Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Agency
Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.267741