Harris vs Nickerson under general practice

Harris v. Nickerson (1873) - Case Summary and General Principles

Facts of the Case

The defendant, Nickerson, was an auctioneer who announced an auction of goods scheduled for a specific day at a particular location.

The plaintiff, Harris, traveled to the auction based on the advertisement, expecting to bid on certain items.

Before the auction began, the defendant withdrew some of the goods from sale.

Harris sued Nickerson for the expenses he incurred traveling to the auction, claiming that the announcement of the auction was a binding offer, and withdrawing the goods amounted to a breach.

Legal Issue

Whether an advertisement or announcement of an auction constitutes a binding offer to hold the goods for sale, creating a legal obligation to complete the auction as advertised.

In other words, can the plaintiff recover damages for expenses incurred relying on an advertisement for an auction that was subsequently withdrawn or changed?

Decision

The court held that the advertisement of an auction is not an offer but an invitation to treat (an invitation to make an offer).

Therefore, the defendant was not liable for the expenses Harris incurred in relying on the announcement.

The withdrawal of the goods before the auction did not amount to a breach of contract because no contract was formed by the announcement alone.

Legal Principles Illustrated

1. Invitation to Treat vs Offer

Advertisements and announcements are generally considered invitations to treat, meaning they invite others to make offers, rather than constituting offers themselves.

A contract is formed only when an offer is accepted.

In this case, the auction announcement was an invitation to bidders to come and make offers (bids).

2. Auction Sales

The auctioneer’s announcement is a call for bids.

Each bid by a potential buyer is an offer, which the auctioneer may accept or reject.

Until a bid is accepted (usually by the fall of the hammer), there is no contract.

The auctioneer can withdraw items before the auction without liability.

3. Reliance and Damages

Mere reliance on an invitation to treat does not create a binding contract.

Expenses incurred based on an invitation to treat or advertisement cannot generally be recovered as damages.

General Practice Implications

Advertisements, price lists, and catalogues are usually not legally binding offers but invitations to negotiate or treat.

Offers must be clear, certain, and communicated to the offeree.

Parties should be cautious in treating advertisements or announcements as binding commitments.

This principle protects sellers and auctioneers from being forced to complete sales merely because they have announced them publicly.

Relevant Case Law

Harris v. Nickerson (1873) LR 8 QB 286

This case is often cited to clarify the distinction between offer and invitation to treat.

It emphasizes that advertisements and announcements are preliminary communications, not binding offers.

Summary

AspectExplanation
CaseHarris v. Nickerson (1873)
Legal PrincipleAdvertisement/auction announcement = invitation to treat, not offer
IssueWhether withdrawal of goods before auction breached contract
Court HoldingNo contract existed; defendant not liable for plaintiff’s expenses
ImpactClarified that advertisements are not binding offers

Conclusion

Harris v. Nickerson is a foundational case in contract law that clarifies the legal nature of advertisements and auction announcements. It establishes that such announcements are invitations to treat, not offers, and therefore do not bind the announcer to sell or hold the goods. This protects sellers and auctioneers and guides parties in understanding when a contract is legally formed.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments