REFUSED BID AND SEQUEL.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 16 July 1925, Page 3

REFUSED BID AND SEQUEL.

* DAMAGES AGAINST AUCTIONEERS. In a case wherein John tie Gieeiic, of Palmerston North, took action against Mounsey and Co., auctioneers, and James Dawber, claiming £4O damages for the refusal of defendants to sell plaintiff at an unreserved sale a motor cycle for which plaintiff allegedly 'Offered the highest bid, reserved judgment was given by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M. His Worship said that; the statements in the advertisement 01 the sale were untrue; to the knowledge of the auctioneers. The machines, v ho property of the defendant Dawber, included in the sale had a reserve placed upon them by the vendor, therefore it would be seen that the advertisement and sale were intended by the auctioneers to be a fraud on the public, and although infcrentially defendant Dawber lent himself to the deception, there was no actual proo! that he was a party to- the advertisement. The sale commenced and proved a fiasco, but prior to the auctioneer stopping it, a motor cycl§ was put .up for auction. There were only two bids one for £lO, and then one oy plaintiff for £l2 10s. This bid the auctioneer refused to accept, giving no reason except that he considered it inadequate, and withdrew the machine from sale. The evidence showed that the machine concerned was later sold for £65. The.auctioneer relied upon general conditions of sale for his refusal to accept the bid. The condition relied on read; “the auctioneer expressly reserves thd right to refuse any bid.” If this condition was. read literally, said Mr Stout, the sale could not. be an auction sale, and it would mean that there could be no sale without reserve, as an auctioneer could ali ways refuse to accept any bid what- ’ ever if he considered it inadequate. , In the 'Opinion of the Magistrate, the | condition was bad unless read with a proviso that the refusal must he for some reasonable cause, such as incapacity arising from infancy, lunacy, etc., or where the bid was made by a person known to be unfinancial, or ; by the vendor, his agent where the 1 sale was without reserve. He was of the opinion,. therefore, ’ that the auctioneer was bound to accept plaintiff’s bid, and having refused to do so, was liable in damages to 1 plaintiff. The damages claimed were 1 not excessive. If the bid had been ■ accepted, plaintiff would have obtained for £l2 10s an article later sold for £65. His loss was well over fhe £4O claimed.