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 were duly knocked down to the defendant, but he reneged on the agreement, which the plaintiff then sued to enforce. The contract was held to be contrary to public policy.
Held: The judge’s decision was against authority. Atkin LJ said that the agreement was one the parties were free, in the absence of express or implied misrepresentations intended to deceive, to make and enforce the agreement was one the parties were free, in the absence of express or implied misrepresentations intended to deceive, to make and enforce, and there was nothing in this agreement which was ex facie illegal. Bankes LJ concurred.
Scrutton LJ dissenting said it was clear that the agreement was neither criminal nor actionable at the suit of the vendors, but he considered that the restrictions accepted in the agreement, although reasonable in the plaintiff’s interest, were contrary to the interest of the public and thus an unjustified and unenforceable restraint of trade.
Judges:
Scrutton LJ, Atkin LJ, Bankes LJ
Citations:
[1921] 1 KB 635
Citing:
Appeal from – Rawlings v General Trading Co 1920
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 . .
Cited by:
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: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.270736
