IMPORTANT TO AUCTIONEERS AND THE PUBLIC.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 41, 15 March 1884, Page 7

IMPORTANT TO AUCTIONEERS AND THE PUBLIC.

A well-known linn of Brisbane uuot tioneers advertised m tlw newspapers thaon a certain day 60 trunks wmrd he sold by them by public auction without rosorvo. On theday mimed the plai.-itill: intend oil the wile, and one of Iho dci'endants read out thu conditions of- sale and put up a nest of throe trunks, saying tlvut the buyer would have the option Of taking 1 or 20 nests at the price the iirst nest was sold for ; also, the highest bidder to be the purchaser. When the first nest was put up plaintiff bid 26**, the highest bid. Tho auctioneer thon said, " I pass them m. " The plaintiff at once objected that the sale had been advertised to be without reserve, and declared that he was ready to take the whole of the nests at 26^ per nest. The auctioneer replied, v< Are you ? well you won't got them ; " whereupon plaintiff repeated his demand, and finally brought the matter into court. During the trial evidence was given that the trunks were of two qualities, about half of each quality, some being worth 40s to 45s per nest, and the rest from 30s to Hss. The judgu' however, did not consider this groat disparity between the value of tho goods and the amount ot: tho bid as m any diminishing the binding force of tlie advertisement that the would bo without reserve. Defendants applied for a nonsuit on the ground that tho seller has a right to withdraw goods from sale before the fill I of the hammer ; but this application wus rejected, and the case allowed to rest solely on the point as to whether an action can be brought against an auctioneer for a breach of contract to sell. The Judge (Manliold) decided that tho auctioneers were liable for the broach of contract, and that plaintiff: was entitled to damages to tiie amount of tho dillcrcnco between his bid of 26s and the wholesale price of the 20 nests. In tho course of the .judgment the Ifinglish case of Warlow v. Harrison was particularly referred to. In that case the plaintffsued the defendant — an auctioneer— under tho following circumstances : — The defendant received instructions to sell a mare by auction without reserve. On the mare being put up plaintiff bid GO guineas, which was the highest bonu lide bid ; but the owner bid (U guineas, and the defendant knocked down the mare to tho owner. The plaintill: demanded the mare, and oiFered GO guineas to the defendant (the auctioneer), but he refused to receive the money or to deliver the mare. In this ease it was laid down that the plaintiff could recover against the defendant m an action for breach of contract to sell ; and Baron Martin, m his judgment, delined the position of the several parties to an auction m a manner worthy of attention. uln 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 m most cases of sale by auction, the owner's name was not disclosed — he was a concealed principal. The name*: of the auctioneers alone were publish -d, and the sale was announced by tlr.'in to be without reserve. This means, according to all the cases, that neither the vendor nor any person m his Oehalf may bid at the auction, and th.it lhe property slmll be sold to the highest bidder, wheatlier tho sum bid be equivlent to the real value or not. " it would be well, we think, m the face of this judgment, that auctioneers should be careful to carry out with the strictest particularity the conditions of their advertisements, and cot state that sales will be " without reserve " unless they really mean it, or are prepared to stand the consequence of actions for breaches of contract.