Knowledge (XXG)

Harris v Nickerson

Source 📝

119:. The Plaintiff obtained a commission to buy the office furniture and expended time and expense to travel to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for the office furniture. On the third day, the lots for the office furniture were withdrawn. The Plaintiff sued for loss of time and expense. The judge at first instance found in favour of the Plaintiff. Leave was given to appeal to the 136:
responsible to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses". Quain and Archibald, JJ. also drew public policy arguments, emphasising that there existed no authority on which to base a decision that the Defendant is liable to indemnify all those who attended his auction. The court upheld the appeal.
126:
The Plaintiff submitted that the advertisement constituted a contract between themselves and the Defendant that the latter would sell the furniture according to the conditions stated in the advertisement, and that accordingly the withdrawal of the furniture was a breach of contract. The Defendant
135:
The court held unanimously that the advertisement did not constitute an offer, but rather was a mere declaration of intent. Blackburn, J. founded his judgment on public policy grounds, calling it a "startling proposition" that "any one who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement is now
102:
to any person that the goods will actually be put up, and that the advertiser is therefore free to withdraw the goods from the auction at any time prior to the auction. All three judges concurred but issued separate judgments.
127:
submitted the advertisement of a sale did not constitute a contract that any particular lot or class of lots would actually be put up for sale.
233: 275: 255: 115:
papers that certain items, including brewing equipment and office furniture, would be placed up for auction over three days in
265: 270: 83: 280: 260: 177: 185: 120: 169: 150: 99: 87: 229: 193: 116: 201: 249: 161: 223: 94:. The case established that an advertisement that goods will be put up for 145: 91: 155: 95: 112: 71:
Contract, offer, auction, withdrawal of goods, mere declaration
173:
1 E&E 295, 309, 28 LJ 18, auction without reserve
65: 57: 52: 44: 36: 28: 23: 8: 20: 111:The Defendant placed an advertisement in 228:. Taylor & Francis. pp. 33–37. 214: 7: 61:Blackburn, Quain and Archibald, JJ. 14: 86:concerning the requirements of 1: 181:6 B&S 420; 34 LJ (QB) 229 276:High Court of Justice cases 222:Oughton (17 October 2000). 297: 256:English agreement case law 225:Sourcebook on Contract Law 82:(1873) LR 8 QB 286 is an 70: 32:High Court, Queen's Bench 16:English contract law case 98:does not constitute an 90:in the formation of a 186:Williams v Carwardine 266:Lord Blackburn cases 151:Offer and acceptance 88:offer and acceptance 271:1873 in British law 178:Mainprice v Westley 79:Harris v Nickerson 48:(1873) LR 8 QB 286 24:Harris v Nickerson 235:978-1-84314-151-8 194:Spencer v Harding 170:Warlow v Harrison 75: 74: 288: 281:Auction case law 261:1873 in case law 240: 239: 219: 197:Law Rep 5 CP 561 117:Bury St. Edmunds 84:English law case 53:Court membership 21: 296: 295: 291: 290: 289: 287: 286: 285: 246: 245: 244: 243: 236: 221: 220: 216: 211: 142: 133: 109: 17: 12: 11: 5: 294: 292: 284: 283: 278: 273: 268: 263: 258: 248: 247: 242: 241: 234: 213: 212: 210: 207: 206: 205: 202:Barry v Davies 198: 190: 189:4 B&Ad 621 182: 174: 166: 158: 153: 148: 141: 138: 132: 129: 108: 105: 73: 72: 68: 67: 63: 62: 59: 58:Judges sitting 55: 54: 50: 49: 46: 42: 41: 38: 34: 33: 30: 26: 25: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 293: 282: 279: 277: 274: 272: 269: 267: 264: 262: 259: 257: 254: 253: 251: 237: 231: 227: 226: 218: 215: 208: 204: 203: 199: 196: 195: 191: 188: 187: 183: 180: 179: 175: 172: 171: 167: 164: 163: 159: 157: 154: 152: 149: 147: 144: 143: 139: 137: 130: 128: 124: 122: 118: 114: 106: 104: 101: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 80: 69: 64: 60: 56: 51: 47: 43: 40:25 April 1873 39: 35: 31: 27: 22: 19: 224: 217: 200: 192: 184: 176: 168: 162:Payne v Cave 160: 134: 125: 110: 78: 77: 76: 18: 250:Categories 209:References 121:High Court 165:3 TR 148 146:Contract 140:See also 131:Judgment 92:contract 66:Keywords 45:Citation 156:Auction 96:auction 37:Decided 232:  113:London 107:Facts 100:offer 29:Court 230:ISBN 252:: 123:. 238:.

Index

English law case
offer and acceptance
contract
auction
offer
London
Bury St. Edmunds
High Court
Contract
Offer and acceptance
Auction
Payne v Cave
Warlow v Harrison
Mainprice v Westley
Williams v Carwardine
Spencer v Harding
Barry v Davies
Sourcebook on Contract Law
ISBN
978-1-84314-151-8
Categories
English agreement case law
1873 in case law
Lord Blackburn cases
1873 in British law
High Court of Justice cases
Auction case law

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.