Auctioneers Liability

Horowhenua Chronicle, 25 August 1916, Page 3

Auctioneers Liability

LUPOi'TAVJ' •SC'i'K luM 10 CO'I" RT ,1 ll)(i,\l IONT. A judgment ol' a somewhat important nature was delivered at the in onie Colli t yesterday (says the Alaiiawatu Times) by His Honour the Chief Justice in the appeal case between the Hawke's IJjny Farmers' Cooperative Association (appellant) and William Eaiquaharsou, of Dannevirke. (respondent). It appears that the Association disposed of a line of sheep belonging to the it poiidont under tiie reserve placed on tlioni. and lie sued l,'i • a iietioneeis lor the difference in the price obtained and the reserve he had fixed. lie was successful in the lower court, and it was against the decision of the Magistrate that the auctioneer.-, appealed. Tile appoil was not success- j fill. His Honour's judgment is as lollow.s: —

This appeal is on a question of law only, amd that question is, can a vendor of goods who employs an auctioneer to sell his goods and fixes a reserve price maintain an action for <1 a mages digainst an auctioneer if the latter sells the goods at a price less than his reserve price? 1 fail to see why an agent who breaks his contract- of employment is not liable lor breach of

contract. The argument wa.s that as tiio auctioneer had no authority to sell below the reserve price, the employer could have repudiated the contract made liy the auctioneer with the purchaser, and .hence the vendor was not damnified. The case ol Mci.Mauus and Forte.veue wa.s relied on. Th,> ease :s not in point. That was ain action hy a purchaser who bought at an auction knowing that a reserve had been fixed.

but not knowing the minount of the

reserve, and it was held that the buyer could not maintain an action against the auctioneer, either for a breach of duty or for refusing to sign a memor-

andum of sale, otherwise to'complete the contract or for breach of warranty of authority to accept tTie bid. Iteli.amce was placed on the dicta of Fletcher Moulton, L.J., in tliat case, ft was said : "The auctioneer could not effectively accept such a bid because ho could not make a contract so as to bind his principal to accept less than the reserve price. That is no doubt correct, but the vendor, in employing his agent to sell, did not contemplate that he was to be landed in a law suit. No doubt the vendor could have ratified and approved of the auctioneer's sale. The magistrate found, however, that so far from ratifying or approving of the sale, the vendor, on hearing of the sale made 'vehement protest' agatiust what the auctioneer had done. The auctioneer should have seon that the sale was rescinded. He did not do so. Tlio old case Duficsne v. ifutchins'.n is still good law. TTie headnote cornet--ly states the point decided, and is as follows: If a broker, being authorised to sell the goods for a certain price, sells them at an inferior price, he is not liable to trover for the amount ol • the goods. The proper remedy is by an action on the case. In BexelT v. Christie, the headnote reads: — Action does not lie against an auctioneer for selling a horse at the highest price bid t'or him, contrary to the owner's express directions not to let him go under a lairger sum named. Otherwise if the owner had directed the auctioneer to set the horse up at such particular price, he should bes sold at that price, but not lower. The only question which this C. urt has to determine is whether an action lien Against nil auctioneer for breach of duty in selling under the reserve, and in .mv opinion an action does lie where there has been no ratification of the agent's act. The vender protested ami did not ratify aild lie was not. in my opinion, bound fc© sue the purchaser for the return of the sheep. The appeal would be dismissed with CO tis costs.

Mr T. H. f!. Lloyd appeared for nil>pellant, and 31 r IT. TL Ooopor for respondent.