Richards v Phillips

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
JudgeLORD JUSTICE HARMAN,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL
Judgment Date26 April 1968
Judgment citation (vLex)[1968] EWCA Civ J0426-2
Date26 April 1968

[1968] EWCA Civ J0426-2

In The Supreme Court of Judicature

The Court of Appeal

(Civil Division)

(From: Mr. Justice Pennycuick)

Before:

Lord Justice Harman

Lord Justice Russell and

Lord Justice Widgery

Raymond Keith Richards
and
Acton Francis Phillips and Wilfred Oakley and Chesterton & Sons (a firm)

Mr. H.E. FRANCIS, Q.C. and Mr. G.T. HESKETH (instructed by Messrs. Stilgoes) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).

Mr. A.C. SPARROW, Q.C. and Mr. G.M. GODFREY (instructed by Messrs. Roche, Son & Neale) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).

LORD JUSTICE HARMAN
1

This dispute, serious enough, between the parties is a comedy of errors of a remarkable kind. The proprietors of the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith, who were the first two defendants, were in 1965 desirous of selling that desirable property and they put it into the hands of well-known auctioneers and estate agents called Chesterton & Company to be offered for sale by auction. This was done in April of 1965. Before the sale the plaintiff communicated with the auctioneer, whose name was Bussey, that he intended to bid) but apparently Mr. Bussey had no other information of any prospective bidden.

2

The room at the London auction rooms where this was put up was a fairly large room with windows opening on to the street, where a certain amount of noise came in, and had, I gather, a fairly high rostrum for the auctioneer. There were chairs below him and to his left for his partner, who was acting as his clerk, and two junior employees in the firm the duty of one of whom was to get the memorandum signed when a bid was accepted; and in front of him there were two sets of chairs, with an aisle down the middle. Immediately in front of him on the left there were five representatives of the Hammersmith Borough Council, headed by a man named Drummie, who was apparently himself an auctioneer. Further back on the same side - that is to say to the auctioneer' left as he looked down the hall - was the plaintiff.

3

The property was put up. £10,000 was the opening bid. Mr. Richards, the plaintiff, bid I think £15,000. The auctioneer, bidding for the reserve price, which was 625,800, bid £20,000. Thereafter the bidding seems to have gone up by thousands until it got to 625,000. It appears that when £21,000 was bid Mr. Drummie reused himself from his lethargy sufficiently to make some kind of motion with his sales card. Mr. Bussey never saw it. People sitting immediately in front of Mr. Drummie on the floor did see it and they assumed that he had made a bid, because the auctioneer said "I am bid £21,000". The auctioneer had heard a bid from the plaintiff and had not taken any notice of Mr. Drummie.Mr. Drummie, on the other hand, had heard nothing of what the plaintiff said, nor did the auctioneer's clerk or his two assistants. So here was a thorough comedy of errors going on all round.

4

Things went on like this, the bidding going up by thousands) Mr. Drummie sank into lethargy again and took no more part in it until £25,000 was reached, whereupon the auctioneer went very near to his reserve by bidding £25,500. Mr. Richards, the plaintiff, thereupon bid £26,000. At the same time Mr. Drummie raised his card. "£26,000 I am bid", says the auctioneer; and nobody moved a muscle. But the position in fact as we now know was that both Mr. Drummie and Mr. Richards thought that it was his bid of £26,000 which had been accepted, so neither of them made any move. In fact the twitchings of Mr. Drummie fell unnoticed by the auctioneer, although they were perceptible to the auctioneer's assistants sitting on the floor. The auctioneer thereupon said! "Going: going: gone - £26,000, to the gentleman at the back of the hall". This apparently did move Mr. Drummie a little bit. When the assistant went down with the sheet of particulars, Mr. Drummie got up and said "Oh, but I was...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • Frank R Thorold (Pty) Ltd v Estate Late Beit
    • South Africa
    • 22 August 1996
    ...(Pty) Ltd v Arnold [1989] VR 402 Richards v Phillips and Others [1967] 3 All ER 877 (Ch) Richards v Phillips [1969] 1 Ch D 39 (CA) ([1968] 2 All ER 859) B Shandel v Jacobs and Another 1949 (1) SA 320 (N) SWA Amalgameerde Afslaers (Edms) Bpk v Louw 1956 (1) SA 346 (A) Ulbrick v Laidlaw [1924......
  • Beit v Frank Thorold (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • 9 May 1994
    ...(PTY) LTD 465 BLIEDEN J 1994 (4) SA 457 WLD latter bidder's bid which had been accepted by the autioneer. A In Richards v Phillips [1969] 1 Ch 39 ([1968] 2 All ER 859 (Ch)) the auction sale concerned was subject to the following condition which is repeated at 47 of the report: 'l. Unless ot......
  • Frank R Thorold (Pty) Ltd v Estate Late Beit
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 22 August 1996
    ...are certain decisions of other jurisdictions. Foremost of these is the English case of Richards v Phillips [1969] 1 Ch D 39 (CA) ([1968] 2 All ER 859), which is in many respects similar to the present case. It related to the sale by public auction of the Lyric Theatre in Hammersmith. Condit......
  • Beit v Frank Thorold (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Witwatersrand Local Division
    • 9 May 1994
    ...someone else had bid and J it was the Blieden J A latter bidder's bid which had been accepted by the autioneer. In Richards v Phillips [1969] 1 Ch 39 ([1968] 2 All ER 859 (Ch)) the auction sale concerned was subject to the following condition which is repeated at 47 of the '1. Unless otherw......