Prospective bidders at an auction of military surplus stores had agreed that one should bid for their joint account, and the goods purchased were to be shared equally, each paying half the purchase price. The goods were knocked down to the defendant, but he went back on the agreement, which the plaintiff then sued to enforce.
Held: The action was dismissed. At any rate where goods were the property of the public, it was against public policy that people should combine at an auction to procure that goods were sold at a price considerably below their fair value, with the necessary result that the public were defrauded. It was the equivalent of secretly using a puffer to drive up the price.
Citations:
[1920] 3 KB 30
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Rawlings v General Trading Co CA 1921
Prospective bidders at an auction of military surplus stores agreed that only one should bid. Thus the defendant was to bid on their joint account, and the goods purchased were to be shared equally, each paying half the purchase price. The goods . .
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270737