Moore v. Berry

7 Citing cases

  1. Love v. Basque Cartel

    873 F. Supp. 563 (D. Wyo. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    In Love, 873 F. Supp. at 566, 568, on which the trial court relied, the court determined that the bidding at an auction for a 90,000-acre ranch did not constitute bid rigging because the auction encouraged joint bidding: in early rounds, bids were taken on individual subdivided parcels; in later rounds, bids were taken on the ranch as a whole.

    Some courts hold that the advertisement or advance announcement has no significance except to announce that a sale has been set. This approach was cited with approval by the Wyoming Supreme Court in Pitchfork, 615 P.2d 541 at 547.See also 7 Am.Jur.2d Auctions and Auctioneers, ยง 16 (1980), citing Anderson v. Wisconsin C.R. Co., 107 Minn. 296, 120 N.W. 39 (1909), Moore v. Berry, 40 Tenn. App. 1, 288 S.W.2d 465 (1955). Still other courts have held that declarations of the auctioneer subsequent to and at variance with the advertised procedures cannot change the printed terms of such advertisements unless the purchaser has knowledge of the modification.

  2. Alex Lyon & Son, Sales Managers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Leach

    No. 18-0383 (W. Va. Jun. 15, 2020)

    sale announced by Mr. Parks, the auctioneer, and Mr. Solarsh were binding on Wes-Flo regardless of whether its bidder, Art Perry, knew or heard them."); Pitchfork Ranch, 615 P.2d at 553 ("The buyer may rely upon such announced terms and conditions of the sale, and he is likewise bound thereby, whether present at the time of the announcement or has knowledge thereof."); Matter of Premier Container Corp., 408 N.Y.S.2d 725, 730 (Sup. Ct. 1978) ("The conditions of a public sale, announced by the auctioneer at the time and place of the sale, are binding on the purchaser, whether or not he knew or heard them."); Coleman v. Duncan, 540 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo. App. 1976) ("Usually the auctioneer . . . announces these terms and conditions which, when so announced, are generally deemed . . . to bind the purchaser even though he did not hear or understand the announcement, or was not present at the time of the announcement and such terms (or conditions) were not brought to his actual attention."); Moore v. Berry, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tenn.App. 1955) ("It seems to be a settled rule in this state as well as elsewhere that conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard them."). Unless a contrary intention is manifested, bids at an auction embody terms made known by advertisement, posting or other publication of which bidders are or should be aware, as modified by any announcement made by the auctioneer when the goods are put up.

  3. Alex Lyon & Son, Sales Managers & Auctioneers, Inc. v. Leach

    844 S.E.2d 120 (W. Va. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    by Mr. Parks, the auctioneer, and Mr. Solarsh were binding on Wes-Flo regardless of whether its bidder, Art Perry, knew or heard them."); Pitchfork Ranch , 615 P.2d at 553 ("The buyer may rely upon such announced terms and conditions of the sale, and he is likewise bound thereby, whether present at the time of the announcement or has knowledge thereof."); Matter of Premier Container Corp. , 95 Misc.2d 859, 408 N.Y.S.2d 725, 730 (Sup. Ct. 1978) ("The conditions of a public sale, announced by the auctioneer at the time and place of the sale, are binding on the purchaser, whether or not he knew or heard them."); Coleman v. Duncan , 540 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo. App. 1976) ("Usually the auctioneer ... announces these terms and conditions which, when so announced, are generally deemed ... to bind the purchaser even though he did not hear or understand the announcement, or was not present at the time of the announcement and such terms (or conditions) were not brought to his actual attention."); Moore v. Berry , 40 Tenn.App. 1, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (1955) ("It seems to be a settled rule in this state as well as elsewhere that conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard them.").Unless a contrary intention is manifested, bids at an auction embody terms made known by advertisement, posting or other publication of which bidders are or should be aware, as modified by any announcement made by the auctioneer when the goods are put up.

  4. 146 Dundas Corp. v. Chemical Bank

    400 Mass. 588 (Mass. 1987)   Cited 19 times
    Nothing more than a general requirement of good faith

    Well v. Schoeneweis, 101 Ill. App.3d 254, 257 (1981). Moore v. Berry, 40 Tenn. App. 1, 8 (1955). Holston v. Pennington, 225 Va. 551, 556 (1983).

  5. Continental Can Co. v. Commercial Waterway District No. 1

    56 Wn. 2d 456 (Wash. 1959)   Cited 11 times

    " (Italics ours.) In Moore v. Berry, 40 Tenn. App. 1, 288 S.W.2d 465 (1955), a notice of sale at public auction contained, among others, the following reservation: "`. . .

  6. Pritchett v. Comas Montgomery Realty & Auction Co.

    No. M2014-00583-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Explaining that the reliance element involves two inquiries, "whether the plaintiff actually relied on the misrepresentation and whether that reliance was reasonable"

    Conditions of a sale at auction that are announced at the auction are binding on the bidder. Cunningham v. Lester, 138 S.W.3d 877, 881 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); Moore v. Berry, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1955). Therefore, since there is no claim that Defendant engaged in fraud, intentional misconduct, or gross negligence, we have concluded that Defendant successfully negated the essential element that Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentation that the building was 11,556 square feet. Because Defendant negated an essential element of Plaintiff's claim, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

  7. Custom AG Service, Inc. v. Watts

    No. 32010-3-III (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2014)

    "'Conditions prescribed by the seller or owner and announced at the time and place of the auction are binding on the purchaser whether or not he knew or heard of them."' Id. (quoting Moore v. Berry, 40 Tenn.App. 1, 288 S.W.2d 465, 468 (1955); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts ยง 28 cmt e (1981). The Restatement explains: