REPOSITORIES AND AUCTIONS. 43 



auctioneer, against whom the action was brought, and that 

 they were not called upon to say whether there was any or 

 what remedy on the conditions of sale against the vendor, 

 who violated the condition that the article should be bond 

 fide sold " without reserve," but they were clear that the 

 bidder had no remedy against the auctioneer, whose 

 authority to accept the offer of the bidder had been deter- 

 mined by the vendor before the hammer had been knocked 

 down. But in the Exchequer Chamber, to which this case 

 was carried, three Judges held that the purchaser was 

 entitled to recover damages, for they thought that the 

 highest hond fide bidder at an auction may sue the auc- 

 tioneer as upon a contract that the sale shall be " without 

 reserve," and that the contract is broken upon a bid being 

 made by or on behalf of the owner, whether it be during 

 the time when the property is under the hammer, or it be 

 the last bid on which the property is knocked down. They 

 did not doubt that the owner at any time before the contract 

 is legally complete might revoke the auctioneer's authority. 

 As to the conditions, they held that the owner could not be 

 the buyer ; and that the auctioneer ought not to have taken 

 his bid, but to have refused it, stating as his reason that 

 the sale was " without reserve." Inclining to differ from 

 the Queen's Bench, they rather thought the bid of the 

 owner was not a revocation of the auctioneer's authority. 

 The other two Judges agreed, but founded their judgment 

 upon the evidence that the auctioneer had not authority to 

 sell except " without reserve," and thought that there ought 

 to be a count added by way of amendment, stating an 

 undertaking by the auctioneer that he had authority to sell 

 " without reserve," and a breach of that undertaking. 



But where an auctioneer advertised in the London papers Effect of ad- 

 that a sale by auction would take place on a particular day vertisement. 

 in a country town, and also circulated catalogues specifying 

 the articles to be sold ; and a person attended the sale in- 

 tending to buy certain articles specified in the catalogue, 

 but on the day of sale they were withdrawn by the 

 auctioneer ; it was held that there was no implied contract 

 by him to indemnify the intended purchaser against the ex- 

 pense and inconvenience that he had incurred, as the 

 advertising was a mere declaration of intention to sell (r). 



A statement that a horse is the property of the vendor, "Warranty of 



ownership. 



ir) Sarris v. Nickerson, L. E., 8 Q. B. 286 ; 42 L. J., Q. B. 171 ; 

 28 L. T., N. S. 410 ; 21 W. E. 635. 



