- Published on
Warlow v Harrison (1859) EC
Three horses were up for auction "without reserve," according to the defendant, an auctioneer. One of the horses was bid on by the plaintiff, but the vendor of that horse placed a larger bid. As a result, the plaintiff decided not to place a second bid and instead claimed the horse from the vendor, offering him the sum of the previous bid, which the vendor turned down.
According to Martin B., "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...this contract is made with the bonafide bidder," so the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of his contractual right to purchase the horse at the amount of his last bid. This would represent the reserve price in the event that the vendor's bid was approved.
Three horses were up for auction "without reserve," according to the defendant, an auctioneer. One of the horses was bid on by the plaintiff, but the vendor of that horse placed a larger bid. As a result, the plaintiff decided not to place a second bid and instead claimed the horse from the vendor, offering him the sum of the previous bid, which the vendor turned down.
According to Martin B., "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...this contract is made with the bonafide bidder," so the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of his contractual right to purchase the horse at the amount of his last bid. This would represent the reserve price in the event that the vendor's bid was approved.
0 Comments