Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE AUCTION HOUSE: WITH OR WITHOUT RESERVE?
Barry
v. Davies
The expansion of modern modes of commercial dealing such as “e-commerce” has prompted considerable discussion amongst academics and practitioners alike on the application of the traditional rules of contract law to 21st century business. The case of Barry
v. Davies
1
has, on the other hand, recently provided the Court of Appeal with an opportunity to reconsider traditional principles of contract law within the context of an archetypal 19th century commercial arena: the auction house. The dispute concerned the ability of an auctioneer to withdraw items from a non-reserved auction sale, after the commencement of bidding. Sir Murray Stuart-Smith held (Pill, L.J., concurring) that in a sale stated to be non-reserved the auctioneer had no such right, on the ground that he had contracted with
the highest bidder to sell to
the highest bidder.
It is a settled rule of law that an auctioneer does not “offer” lots for sale: he merely invites offers on a particular item which he may choose to accept, normally indicated by the fall of a hammer concluding the contract of sale.2
Consistent with the rule that an offer may be revoked at any point before acceptance, a bidder is free to withdraw his bid at any point before acceptance by the auctioneer.3
Thus, on a traditional contractual analysis of offer and acceptance, it appears that an auctioneer is at liberty to reject the bidder’s offer, if, for example, he considers it to be insufficient.
In Warlow
v. Harrison,
4
however, a majority of the Exchequer Chamber5
stated that, in the case of an auction held without reserve,
a collateral contract existed between the
1. Barry
v. Davies (trading as Heathcote Ball & Co.)
[2000] 1 W.L.R. 1962.
2. British Car Auctions Ltd
v. Wright
[1972] 1 W.L.R. 1519.
3. Payne
v. Cave
(1789) 3 Durn. & E. 143; Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 57(2).
4. (1859) 1 E. & E. 309.
5. The minority concurred in the result but differed in their reasoning, basing their decision instead on a breach of warranty of authority.
CASE AND COMMENT
335