AUCTION PRICE OF HOUSE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24814, 2 March 1946, Page 2

AUCTION PRICE OF HOUSE

SALE REFUSED BY COMMITTEE

EXCESSIVE BIDDING DISAPPROVED

On the grounds that the price accepted for the house by the auctioneer was excessively high, considering the valuations made on both sides, the Urban Land Sales Committee yesterday refused to approve of the sale of a house at the corner of Idris and Fendalton roads at the contract, and auction, price of £5400 by Phoebe May Pearce to Arthur Morgan Stephens. It would be making the position absurd if such big auction prices were considered, said the chairman of the committee (Mr K. G. Archer). The valuation made for the vendor by Messrs N. H. McCrostie and C. E. Hoy was £4129, the documents showed. The Crown valuation, made by Mr W. H. Price, was £3045. The bidding had apparently been opened by the auctioneer at £5OOO, said Mr Archer. In view of the valuations made, it seemed to him that no bidder, realising the true value, would have properly bid for the property at more than £5OOO. Mr Archer said that in accordance with previous decisions, the committee could not allow a sale,by auction where the auction could be considered to have been conducted not in accordance with the provisions of the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act. The idea of an auction being begun at an obviously excessive figure was contrary M to common frise.

Mr J. A. Bretherton (for t ie vendor) disagreed, saying he thought an auction could be begun at any price at which the auctioneer wanted to begin. After an adjournment, Mr H. G. Livingstone gave evidence. He said he had had authority for an opening bid of £5OOO. The bid was on behalf of a buyer who was nresent. No valuation of the property had been handed to him. and it was his duty th sell at the highest possible price. He knew the committee’s z attitude to unreasonably high prices at auctions, and in his opinion the onickest and best way to solve the problem of the hi eh auction figures was to grant a sale at the high figure. It would happen once. He was sure that a number of people at the auction would have been prepared to bid at a lower figure. Mr A. C. Perry (for the purchaser) said that the purchaser, who did not desire to be called, was a farmer who wanted the for health reasons. Replying to Mr Perry Mr Archer said it wa* nerfectlv true that, the committee. although refusing this application. would consider a private contract with th#» «ame vendor, purchaser, and nrice. That was the law. even though it did rather farcical. It hist served to illustrate the, fact that the committee’s powers were not as they should be.