Thornett v Haines: 28 Apr 1846

Where a sale by auction is advertised or stated by the auctioneer to be ‘without reserve’, the employment by the vendor of a puffer to bid for him, without notice, renders the sale void, and entitles the purchaser to recover back his deposit from the auctioneer/


[1846] EngR 605, (1846) 15 M and W 367, (1846) 153 ER 892




England and Wales

Cited by:

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The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale.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


Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.302500