Questionable Estate Auction practice

Swampwalker,

A buyer's usual damages when a seller fails to deliver a good for which an enforceable contract exists is the difference between the reasonable cost the buyer incurs acquiring a replacement and the agreed upon contract price. Of course, the buyer has to prove all the necessary elements (existence of a contract, evidence of the contract price, acquisition of a replacement and the reasonableness of the replacement cost), all without the benefit of a written contract, but a damage remedy does exist.

Sometimes a buyer can recover damages for a profit the buyer lost as a result of the seller's default. In this case, the buyer would have to demonstrate that he had the ability to resell the equipment and its likely resale price (Audiogon blue book anyone?)

The fact that the original poster didn't come out of pocket at the auction doesn't affect his right to damages. You don't have to perform your end of a contract when the other party has already defaulted. You just have to be careful not to indicate that your treating the contract as rescinded.

I'm not saying that the OP should have pursued the auctioneer, just that he could have if he wanted to go to the trouble.

One little caveat. As someone else mentioned, the OP may have agreed to the strange way this auction was conducted when he registered.

Look, this is kind of a silly argument but my point is that given the $ limit in small claims (my state is $2500). Even if you "win" by default, then you most likely will have to pay a sheriff or marshal to serve the judgment and then given that they almost certainly will not pay, you have to find the bank where the auctioneer has an account, and pay the sheriff or marshal to seize the $ from the account, assuming that they have not emptied the account and closed down that business entity. Given the limited recovery vs. legal fees to go to "big claims" court, AND the series of facts that you would have to prove, it's extremely unlikely that it would make economic sense to pursue it. Add in the mental energy and hassle and, IMO, it's best to just walk away. Sometimes you just have to say the guy's an unethical jerk and walk away, for your own piece of mind.

What I wonder about all of this is what did the auctioneer say to explain his actions? He had to have said something at some point, it seems to me. For example, when the items were first auctioned individually did he say anything about there being reserve amounts?

Regards,
-- Al

Swampwalker

I agree that, as a practical matter, there's no use pursuing the auctioneer. I just want to refute the suggestion that, just because you're not out of pocket any money, you don't have legal recourse when someone refuses to sell you an item he agreed to.

It would be more effective to write a letter of complaint to the Better Business Bureau or, if one exists, to a professional association of auctioneers.

Al

Agreed. Very amateurish (or deceptive, depending on your point of view) not to explain out loud to everyone in attendance the unusual ground rules of this auction, before the bidding started. A lot of resentment could have been avoided - evidently the OP wasn't the only disappointed "winning bidder" of an individual piece of equipment.

We do this in bankruptcy court auctions from time to time, but the rules are spelled out very clearly in advance, and everyone who qualifies to bid consents to the process. It's a smart way to sell, and is fair as long as everyone knows about it.

Whether it is legal in your state if not disclosed in advance is a matter of local law.