## Facts

- Bexwell sent a gelding to Christie, an auctioneer, to be sold at a public auction advertised as an estate sale conducted “by order of the executor.”
- The horse was not part of the estate and was not listed in the sale catalogue; Bexwell otherwise had no connection to the auction.
- Bexwell gave Christie a written private instruction not to sell the horse for less than £15.
- The publicly announced auction conditions stated that the goods would be sold “to the best bidder.”
- The horse was sold to the highest bidder for £6 16s. 6d.
- Bexwell sued Christie in an action on the case, alleging negligent sale contrary to the £15 instruction.
- A verdict was initially entered for Bexwell, subject to the court’s determination whether the auctioneer was legally bound to bid for and buy in the horse if bidding did not reach £15.

## Issues

1. Whether an auctioneer is liable to the owner for selling at the highest bid when the owner gave a private minimum-price instruction not reflected in the publicly stated auction terms.
2. Whether, under auction terms promising sale to the “best bidder,” an auctioneer has a legal duty to bid on or buy in the property to protect an undisclosed minimum.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench held that no action lay against the auctioneer on these facts.
- Christie was not required to bid for or buy in the horse to protect Bexwell’s private £15 instruction when the public conditions required sale to the best bidder.
- The court indicated the result could differ if the owner had directed the auctioneer to set the horse up at a particular starting price and not lower (i.e., an expressed minimum in the sale terms).

## Legal Principles

- When goods are offered at auction under publicly stated terms that they will be sold to the highest bidder, the auctioneer is not liable to the seller for accepting the highest bona fide bid below the seller’s unannounced minimum.
- An auctioneer has no legal obligation to engage in owner-bidding or to “buy in” the goods to enforce a secret reserve inconsistent with the public terms of sale.
- A seller seeking a minimum price must protect that interest through publicly operative sale terms (such as a stated reserve or a required starting price); selling below such stated terms may support liability.

## Conclusion

The court rejected liability based on a private “not under £15” instruction where the auction was publicly conducted on “best bidder” terms, holding the auctioneer had no duty to bid in the horse and could complete the sale to the highest bidder absent a publicly stated minimum.


Bexwell v. Christie, 98 Eng. Rep. 1150 (K.B. 1776)