Fenwick v MacDonald Fraser and Co: SCS 29 Jun 1904

A sale of farm animals by auction was not made without reserve because the condition of sale reserved to the owner the right to make one offer for each animal. The Lord Ordinary Lord Kyllachy had decided the case both on the grounds that there was a disclosed principal, following Mainprice’s case, and also that it was not a sale without reserve.
Held: The Lord Justice – Clerk agreed with the Lord Ordinary.
Lord Young held that because the purchaser could withdraw his bid until the hammer fell, so could the seller. He also considered that the sale was not `without reserve’.
Lord Traynor considered that the law of Scotland had been changed by the Sale of Goods Act 1893 which enabled a bid to be withdrawn until the hammer had fallen.


Lord Young, Lord Traynor


[1904] 6F (Ct of Sess) 850, [1904] SLR 41 – 688




Sale of Goods Act 1893



Cited by:

CitedBarry 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The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale.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.

Agency, Contract

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609886