— Part
III.
.
Authority of Auctioneer.
505
This implied authority cannot be revoked after the conclusion of the bidding either by the vendor or by the purchaser {q). It must, however, be exercised at the time of the sale, and the auctioneer has no authority to sign on a subsequent day or on a sale other^Yise than by auction (r). The authority to bind the purchaser is personal to the auctioneer, and does not extend to his clerk (s), unless the purchaser has specially, either by words or conduct, authorised the clerk to act as his agent for this purpose {t). If the auctioneer is himself the vendor, he cannot sign as the agent of the purchaser {u)
Sect.
2.
Authority to sign Contract etc.
Time
for exercise of authority.
Auctioneer's clerk.
Auctioneer vendor.
1027. The sufficiency of the note or memorandum is subject to Note or memorandum the ordinary rules {a) affecting notes or memoranda under the required. It must therefore contain (1) the names of statutes mentioned. the parties or a description sufficient to identify them (h) (2) a statement of the subject-matter (c) (3) a full and complete statement of the terms of the contract ((/), (4) the signature of the person against whom the contract is to be enforced (e); but the auctioneer's signature is sufficient to bind even an undisclosed principal (/). Similarly the necessity for a memorandum may be obviated by acts of part performance in accordance with the ordinary rules (g). On a sale in lots the agreement to purchase each lot is in law, in Sale in lots. the absence of special circumstances, a separate contract, and therefore a note or memorandum will not be necessary to prove the sale of goods in a lot under the value of ^10, even though the purchaser has bought goods in various lots of a larger aggregate value than
£10
Qi).
Day
Jur. (n. s.) 1004 Bell v. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663. Everidge, [1902] 2 Ch. 266. Mews v. Carr (1856), 1 H. & N. 484. {s) Bell V. Balls, supra. [t] Bird V. Boidter (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 443 Sims v. Landray, [1894] 2 Ch. 318. iC) Buckmaster v. Harrop (1802), 7 Ves. 341, (1807) 13 Yes. 456; Wright y. Dannah (1809), 2 Camp. 203. (p)
{q) (r)
V. Wells (1861), 7
Van Praagh
v.
(a)
{h)
See
title
Contract.
Hood v. Lord Barrington (1868), L. E. 1 Commins v. Scott (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 11 Catling v. King (1877), 5 But a term like " vendor " is not sufficient {Jarrett v. Hunter (1886),
Sale V. Lambert (1874), L. E. 18 Eq.
6 Eq. 218 Ch. D. 660.
34 Ch. D. 182; Potter v. Duffield (1874), L. E. 18 Eq. 4; see also Battle v. Anstruther (1893), 69 L. T. 175). (c) Pkmt V. Bourne, [1897] 2 Ch. 281 Pose v. Cunyngliame (1805), 11 Yes. 550 Owen v. Thomas (1834), 3 My. & K. 353 Bleakley v. Smith (1840), 11 Sim. 150. As to when the statement may be supplemented by parol evidence, see title
Contract. {d) Peshton v. Whatmore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 467 Peirce v. Cor/ (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 210; Kenworthy v. Schofield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945; Hinde v. Whitehouse As to the connection of separate documents to form a (1806), 7 East, 558. complete statement, see M'Midlen v. Hellerg (1879), 6 L. E. Ir. 463 Blagden v. Bradhear (1806), 12 Yes. 466, 471. (e) Phillimore v. Barry (1808), 1 Camp. 513 Wood v. Midgley {1854:), 2 Sm. & Giff. 115 ; Bohell v. Hutchinson (1835), 3 A. & E. 355. (/) Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 412.
{g)
See
titles
Contract
Sale of Goods
Sale of Land
and compare
Phillips V. BistolU (1824), 2 B. & C. 511 ; Hinde v. Whitehouse, supra. {h) Sale of Goods Act, 1803 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 58 (1). Emmerson v. HeeUs (1809), 2 Taunt. 38 ; Roots v. Lord Dormer (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 77.
