“LOSS OF A BARGAIN.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17347, 30 September 1924, Page 5

“LOSS OF A BARGAIN.”

AUCTION SALE CLAIM. An interesting point concerning the conditions of an auction sale and the right of the vendor to cancel a sale was raised in a case heard in the AlagCourt yesterday. A claim for £5 damages for failure to give delivery of a carpet was made by Airs Ann M’Laughlin (Air Batchelor) against P. S. Nicholls and Go. (Mr Brassington). AD Batchelor said that Airs M’Laughlin attended an auction sale at P. S. Nioholls’s rooms on July 9. and bid for the carpet, which was knocked down to her for £5 10s. She left the rooms then. Her husband attended next day to receive the carpet, and was told that the principal on whose behalf it had been sold had decided that the carpet had gone too cheaply, and consequently demanded the carpet back. Defendants were therefore- unable to carry out the contract, and plaintiff was claiming damages for the loss of the bargain. In reply to Mr Brassington plaintiff said that when the carpet was knock?<l clown she gave the clerk her name and address, and told him that her husband would call for the carpet. Her husband was refused the carpet. She called later with a cheque, but was told that the ladv who sold the carpet thought that it had gone too cheaply. David Stuart M Laughlin, husband of the plaintiff, said he called at the rooms of Nicholls and Co. with a cheque to pay for the carpet, hut was told that the vendor had withdrawn it. In reply to questions witness said he had the cheque in his pocket. The Magistrate said a cheque was not a legal tender. At the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff the Afagistrate said he must non-suit on the fact that there was no evidence of tender. Defendant was allowed costs £1 lla. anil expen«e>s of one witness 10s.