Payne against Cave
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1789 |
| Date | 02 May 1789 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 502
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
payne against cave. Saturday, May 2d, 1789. A bidder at an auction, under the usual conditions that the highest bidder shall be the purchaser, may retract his bidding any time before the hammer is down. This was an action tried at the sittings after last term at Guildhall before Lord Kenyon, wherein the declaration stated, that the plaintiff, on 22d September 1788, (c) See Sabbartm v. Sabbarton, Rep. t. Talb. 245; and Doe v. Brabant, post, 4 vol. (a) Mr. J. Buller was sitting for the Lord Chancellor when this case was argued. 3 T. R. 149. THE KING V. JUSTICES OF NORTH RIDING OF YORKSHIRE 503 was possessed of a certain worm-tub, and a pewter worm in the same, which were then and there about to be sold by public auction by one S. M. the agent of the plaintiff in that behalf; the conditions of which sale were to be the usual conditions of sale of goods sold by auction, &c. of all which premises the defendant afterwards, to wit, &c. had notice; and thereupon the defendant in consideration that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendant, did then and there undertake and promise 60 perform the conditions of the said sale, to be performed by the plaintiff as seller, &o. undertook, and then and there promised the plaintiff to perform the conditions of the sale, to be performed on the part of the buyer, &c. And the plaintiff avers that the conditions of sale, herein-after mentioned, are usual conditions of sale of goods sold by auction, to wit, that the highest bidder should be the purchaser, and should deposit five shillings in the pound, and that if the lot purchased were not paid for and taken away in two days time, it should be put up again and resold, &c. [stating all the conditions]. It then stated, that the defendant became the purchaser of the lot in question for 401. and was requested to pay the usual deposit, which he refused, &c. At the trial, the plaintiff's counsel opened the case thus :-The goods were put up in one lot at an auction ; there were several bidders, of whom the defendant [149] was the last, who bid 401.; the auctioneer dwelt on the bidding, on which the defendant said, "Why do you dwell? you will not get more." The auctioneer said that he was informed the worm weighed at least 1300 cwt. and was worth more than 401.; the defendant then asked him whether he would warrant it to weigh so much, and receiving an answer in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v Davies (t/a Heathcote Ball & Co) and Others
...with two principles of law, namely that the auctioneer's request for bids is not an offer which can be accepted by the highest bidder ( Payne v Cave (1789) 3 TR 148) and that there is no completed contract of sale until the auctioneer's hammer falls and the bidder may withdraw his bid up un......
-
Warlow v Harrison
...retract his bidding, though his name has not been entered : he may retract before the hammer is down which is all that Payne v. Carve (3 T. R. 148) shews, though some remarks of the Court are reported in that case the accuracy of which may be questionable. In Emmerson v. Heelis (2 Taun. 38)......
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...were reviewed; Mackeurtan on Law of Sale of Goods (pp. 36, 37, 40); Matthaeus (1.10.48); Voet (18.1.3); Payne v Cave (I R.R. 679, 3 T.R. 148); Maasdorp (III., p. 130); Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 1, p. 511, note); Pollock on Contract (pp. The presumption is that a sale by auction is wi......
-
Neugebauer & Co Ltd v Hermann
...were reviewed; Mackeurtan on Law of Sale of Goods (pp. 36, 37, 40); Matthaeus (1.10.48); Voet (18.1.3); Payne v Cave (I R.R. 679, 3 T.R. 148); Maasdorp (III., p. 130); Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 1, p. 511, note); Pollock on Contract (pp. The presumption is that a sale by auction is wi......
-
Offer and Acceptance
...run by a statutory agency does not create Contract “A” — change of rules not a breach of contract). 51 Payne v Cave (1789), 3 Term Rep 148, 100 ER 502. See generally MA Hickling, “Auctions without Reserve” (1970) 5 UBC L Rev 187 [Hickling]. Offer and Acceptance 49 any other customary manner......