Auctionhouse.ie - will not give winning bidder lot

Bishmilla

Hi there,

Am posting on behalf my dad, who was the winning bidder of a lot at an auction held by auctionhouse.ie.

On going up at the end to collect the item and pay he was very rudely told by the staff that the item was not there and had been taken back by the seller, and he had no rights to it whatsoever as he had not paid for it. This contradicts what they say on their own website, that as soon as the hammer falls both the seller is obliged to sell and the winning bidder must pay up.

On speaking to the manager they eventually agreed to send on the item first thing in the morning. Four weeks later and the company are fobbing us off with excuses.

Has anyone had anything similar and know the relevant consumer organisation or regulatory body for this? Is the Property Services Regulatory Authority for auctioneers involved with property only or any kind of auctioned goods?

Thanks!

Procrastastudy

The rules on auctions is very different from general contracts you enter into when you walk into a shop, and predate the Boots Chemist case which give us the invitation to treat scenario we all love to rant about today.

I'd need to dig out my notes to give you a 100% sure answer but I'm 95% sure you are correct and its yours. You would have a course of action against not the seller and the auctioneers if memory serves.

I'd suggest you keep on pushing - I don't know if this is something you can claim for in the Small Claims Court - but I dare say it would be very quickly decided in your favour in the District Court.

EDIT - Ah yes - it's section 58(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893. I suggest a letter stating this and giving them ten working days to comply before you initiate legal proceedings.

AS ALWAYS - GET PROPER LEGAL ADVICE IF YOU GO DOWN THIS ROUTE!

P. Breathnach

An auctioneer is an agent for the seller, and has the power to sell on behalf of the principal. When an auction sale is concluded (usually marked by the fall of the hammer) an irrevocable contract exists.

Note I said "auction sale". If there is a disclosed reserve price that is not reached, the fall of the hammer might simply indicate that the effort to sell has been concluded without a sale being made; if there is not a disclosed reserve, but the auctioneer does not wish to contract at the price offered by the highest bidder, it is necessary to indicate that clearly at the time - and certainly not afterwards.

I don't think the Small Claims Court would take this sort of case. It would go to the District Court or a higher court depending on the value of the transaction.

I agree with Procrastastudy that you should have a legal adviser on board if you go this route.

Procrastastudy

P. B do you happen to know what happens if the seller withdraws the lot before the auctioneer 'brings the hammer down' - is this then a case of action against the auctioneer?

In the OPs case is it an action against the seller, the auctioneer or both?

Many Thanks.

P. Breathnach

Procrastastudy wrote: »

P. B do you happen to know what happens if the seller withdraws the lot before the auctioneer 'brings the hammer down' - is this then a case of action against the auctioneer?

I don't know for sure, but I am fairly confident that a sale can be aborted at any time before the hammer is dropped.

In the OPs case is it an action against the seller, the auctioneer or both?

My understanding (which may be erroneous) is that where the identity of the principal is not disclosed, the auctioneer as agent can be sued; where the identity of the principal is known, the purchaser can choose to sue either the agent or the principal (there might be a follow-on suit between the principal and the agent, but that is not the purchaser's problem).

Many Thanks.

Just remember that I am not a lawyer (I don't like the popular initialism, which is akin to declaring that I am anal). And, of course, I don't make the grade as a citation either in a court or a law exam.

Procrastastudy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

(I don't like the popular initialism, which is akin to declaring that I am anal). And, of course, I don't make the grade as a citation either in a court or a law exam.

My apologies P. Breathnach.

What I meant to convey was if the seller told a member of staff and the auctioneer was unaware but dropped the hammer anyway. I have a feeling this would probably come under mistake - I shall read up when my shiny new (to me) law books arrive!

Procrastastudy

DocMark wrote: »

<SNIP SPAMMING>

This is a good point but there are quite a few no foul no fee Solicitors and they would be able to advise you on whether recovering costs from the other side is a possibility.

P. Breathnach

Procrastastudy wrote: »

...
What I meant to convey was if the seller told a member of staff and the auctioneer was unaware but dropped the hammer anyway. I have a feeling this would probably come under mistake - I shall read up when my shiny new (to me) law books arrive!

My dusty old lawbooks (well, one of them) tell me that when an auctioneer sells goods, he implicitly warrants his authority to sell. That means that the onus is on the auctioneer to ensure that he has that authority. From that, it would seem to follow that if he did not have the authority, he would have a liability to the disappointed purchaser.

[PS: It's no foal, no fee - an expression borrowed from horse breeding.]

Lplated

Once the hammer falls an irrevocable contract is made - the OPs Dad is obliged to pay for the product, the auctioneer is obliged to accept the payment [and remove his fees], pays the seller and lets the buyer take the goods.

Don't know what the product is or whether you'd be bothered going down the legal route, but you/your Dad could check which professional body the auctioneer is a member of and make a formal complaint that way.

It's an unusual situation tbh, but still shouldn'thave happened.

Lplated

Procrastastudy wrote: »

P. B do you happen to know what happens if the seller withdraws the lot before the auctioneer 'brings the hammer down' - is this then a case of action against the auctioneer?

In the OPs case is it an action against the seller, the auctioneer or both?

Many Thanks.

If the seller withdraws the lot before the hammer falls, then there is no auction - subject of course to the seller letting the auctioneer know that his [the auctioneers] authority to auction the item has been revoked.

Strategically, the OPs best case depends on what he wants - if he wants posession of the item, he would sue the seller, if he just wants monetary compensation for the loss of his bargain , then probably the auctioneer would be a better bet.

Quite likely, if OP did choose to initiate suit, that whoever he chose as defendant would seek to join the unsued one as a third party which plaintiff could then decide to join as co-defendant depending on circumstances put forward.

Legal theory aside, OP would really have to decide what the value of the product was to him, whether it was worth the hassle of initiating a court case with ensuing fees etc... etc...

Patcho

I see the Auctionhouse website is gone???,is this part of Bill Cullen's empire?

chasm

Patcho wrote: »

I see the Auctionhouse website is gone???,is this part of Bill Cullen's empire?

Bill Cullen invested in it after Eugene Heary won The Apprentice in 2011.