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 succeed on a retrial after the court allowed an amendment.
Baron Martin held there to be a contract with the auctioneer that the sale was to be without reserve: ‘Upon the facts of the case, it seems to us that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. In a sale by auction there are three parties, viz. the owner of the property to be sold, the auctioneer, and the portion of the public who attend to bid, which of course includes the highest bidder. In this, as in most cases of sales by auction, the owner’s name was not disclosed: he was a concealed principal. The name of the auctioneers, of whom the defendant was one, alone was published; and the sale was announced by them to be `without reserve.’ This, according to all the cases both at law and equity, means that neither the vendor nor any person in his behalf shall bid at the auction, and that the property shall be sold to the highest bidder, whether the sum bid be equivalent to the real value or not; Thornett v. Haines (a). We cannot distinguish the case of an auctioneer putting up property for sale upon such a condition from the case of the loser of property offering a reward, or that of a railway company publishing a time table stating the times when, and the places to which, the trains run. It has been decided that the person giving the information advertised for, or a passenger taking a ticket, may sue as upon a contract with him; Denton v. Great Northern Railway Company . . Upon the same principle, it seems to us that the highest bona fide bidder at an auction may sue the auctioneer as upon a contract that the sale shall be without reserve. We think the auctioneer who puts the property up for sale upon such a condition pledges himself that the sale shall be without reserve; or, in other words, contracts that it shall be so; and that this contract is made with the highest bona fide bidder; and in case of breach of it, that he has a right of action against the auctioneer. The case is not at all affected by the l7th Section of the Statute of Frauds, which relates only to direct sales, and not to contracts relating to or connected with them’ . . And ‘We entertain no doubt that the owner may, at any time before the contract is legally complete, interfere and revoke the auctioneer’s authority: but he does so at his peril; and, if the auctioneer has contracted any liability in consequence of his employment and the subsequent revocation or conduct of the owner, he is entitled to be indemnified.’
Baron Martin, Willes, Bramwell JJ
[1859] EngR 1046, (1859) 1 El and El 309, (1859) 120 ER 925
Commonlii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Warlow v Harrison QBD 25-Nov-1858
Whether Auctioneer liable to bidder – vendor’s bid
Three following horses were advertised for sale at auction being the property of a gentleman and sold without reserve. The auctioneer had knocked one down as sold for 61 guineas, but the bid was from the owner. The plaintiff sued the auctioneer, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Johnston v Boyes 1899
There is no custom that a purchaser at an auction can expect to have his personal cheque for a ten per cent deposit accepted. This applies even to those with a good credit standing as much as (here) for an apparent pauper.
Cozens Hardy J said . .
Cited – Dahlia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd and Another CA 24-Nov-1977
Appeal against strike out of statement of claim. They had negotiated with the defendants for the purchase of several properties. Though formal contracts were never exchanged, the plaintiffs said that they had the benefit of a unilateral contract to . .
Cited – Dahlia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd and Another CA 24-Nov-1977
Appeal against strike out of statement of claim. They had negotiated with the defendants for the purchase of several properties. Though formal contracts were never exchanged, the plaintiffs said that they had the benefit of a unilateral contract to . .
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 – Mainprice v Westley 4-Jul-1865
Liability of auctioneer. Sale without reserve. Undisclosed principal – 1. A declaration alleged that the defendant, an auctioneer, published handbills representing that at a certain day and place he would offer certain premises for peremptory sale . .
Cited – Harris v Nickerson QBD 25-Apr-1873
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Agency
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.288398