Warlow v Harrison [1859]
Facts of the case The plaintiff bid for one of the horses. The defendant advertised an auction of three horses without reserve. Later there was a higher bid from the vendor of the horses. The plaintiff claimed the horse from the vendor and bid no further. The plaintiff offered the vendor the amount of the plaintiff last bid. However, the vendor refused. Held Per Martin B, “the auctioneer who puts the property up for sale upon such condition pledges himself that the sale shall be without reserve; or in other words, contract that it shall be so.. the contract is made with bona fide bidder.” The acceptance of vendor’s bid amounted to reserve price. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to damages based on his contractual right to buy the horses. Conclusion The bidder has the contractual rights to buy the property at the highest bid without reserve.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Kembara's Legal InfosInfos about legal issues and legal concepts that are available online . Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|