42 



HOESEDEALEES, EEPOSITOEIES AND AUCTIONS. 



Notice of 

 particulars. 



Goods put up 

 in lots. 



"Where a 

 bidder may 

 retract. 



Sale " with- 

 out reserre." 



return the horse within two days, which he has not done ; 

 I therefore think the plaintiff must be nonsuited " (I). 



But when property is sold in lots described in particulars 

 of sale, a vendee is only affected with notice of what con- 

 cerns the lots which he purchases, and is not to be taken as 

 having read all the particulars of all the lots (m). 



Where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each 

 lot is prima facie deemed to be the subject of a separate con- 

 tract of sale («). But the making by the parties of a 

 written contract or memorandum embodying several sales is 

 relevant to prove an intention that the whole transaction 

 shall be one entire contract (o). 



" A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer 

 announces its completion by the fall of the hammer, or in 

 other customary manner. Until such announcement is made 

 any bidder may retract his bid" {oo). The reason for this 

 is that the auctioneer is the agent of the vendor, and the 

 assent of both parties is necessary to make the contract 

 binding, and that is signified on the part of the seller by 

 knocking down the hammer. Every bidding is nothing more 

 than an offer on one side, which is not binding on either 

 side till it is assented to (p). 



Where a horse is to be sold " without reserve," and the 

 vendor buys it, the highest bond fide bidder is entitled to 

 recover damages from the auctioneer. In the case of 

 War low V. Harrison [q), the sale was stated to be " without 

 reserve," and one of the printed conditions was, " any lot 

 ordered for this sale, and sold by private contract by the 

 owner or advertiser 'without reserve,' and bought by the 

 oivner, to be liable to the usual commission of 5Z. per cent." 

 There was also the usual condition that the highest bidder 

 should be the buyer. After a bond fide bid by a third per- 

 son, the owner advanced on the bidding, and the lot was 

 knocked down to him. The Court of Queen's Bench held 

 that the owner could not claim the lot as sold to the 



[l] Mesnard v. Aldridge, Esp. 195. 

 271. 



(m) 

 N. S. 



{«) 

 s. 58. 

 son V. 

 620 

 77. 



(") 

 463; 



Curtis 1. Thomas, 33 L. T., 

 664, V.-C. H. 



Sale of Goods Act, 1893, 



, sub-s. (1). See also Emmer- 



Heelis, 2 Tauut. 38 ; 11 E. E. 



Roots V. Dormer, 4 B. & Ad. 



Dykes v. Blake, 4 B. N. C. 

 Bigg V. JF/iiskiiii/, 14 C. B. 



{oo) Saloof Goods Act, 1893,3.58, 

 sub-s. (2). 



{p) Payne v. Ca/ve, 3 T. E. 148 ; 

 1 E. E. 679 ; and see Boutledge v. 

 Grant, 4 Bing. 663 ; Sead v. Diggon, 

 3 M. & E. 97. 



(S) 29 L. J., Q. B. 14 ; 1 E. & 

 E. 296— Ex. Cb. See also Sale of 

 Goods Act, 1893, s. 58, sub-ss. (3), 

 {i),post, p. 45. 



