Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286.

An auctioneer advertised office furniture for sale at auction. The plaintiff travelled to attend but the goods were withdrawn. The court held that an advertisement of an auction is merely a declaration of intent, not an offer, so the auctioneer was not liable for the plaintiff's wasted expenses.

Facts

The Defendant placed an advertisement in London papers stating that certain items, including brewing equipment and office furniture, would be put up for auction over three days in Bury St. Edmunds. The Plaintiff obtained a commission to purchase the office furniture and incurred time and expense travelling to Bury St. Edmunds to bid for the items. On the third day, the lots for the office furniture were withdrawn from sale. The Plaintiff sued for loss of time and expense incurred in attending the auction.

Arguments Presented

The Plaintiff submitted that the advertisement constituted a contract between himself and the Defendant that the latter would sell the furniture according to the conditions stated in the advertisement, and that the withdrawal of the furniture was a breach of contract. The Defendant submitted that 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.

Issues

The key legal issue was whether an advertisement that goods will be put up for auction constitutes an offer capable of acceptance, thereby creating a binding contract with those who attend the auction.

Judgment

The court held unanimously that the advertisement did not constitute an offer but rather was a mere declaration of intent. All three judges concurred but issued separate judgments.

Blackburn J.

Blackburn J. founded his judgment on public policy grounds, describing the plaintiff’s proposition as:

a startling proposition that anyone who advertises a sale by publishing an advertisement is now responsible to everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or travelling expenses.

Quain and Archibald JJ.

Quain and Archibald JJ. also drew upon 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 and found in favour of the Defendant.

Implications

This case established an important principle in contract law regarding the distinction between an offer and an invitation to treat. The decision confirms that:

• An advertisement of an auction is merely a declaration of intent, not an offer to sell specific goods
• Auctioneers retain the right to withdraw goods from sale at any time prior to the auction without incurring liability
• Those who attend auctions based on advertisements cannot claim damages for wasted expenses if goods are withdrawn

The case remains a leading authority on the nature of auction advertisements and has significant implications for understanding the requirements of offer and acceptance in contract formation. It demonstrates the courts’ reluctance to extend contractual liability to mere preparatory or promotional statements.

Verdict: The appeal was upheld in favour of the Defendant. The court ruled that the advertisement did not constitute an offer and therefore the Defendant was not liable for the Plaintiff’s loss of time and expense.

Source: Harris v Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286.