Nickerson advertised an auction of brewing materials, plant, and office furniture. On the day office furniture was to be auctioned, he withdrew all furniture lots. Harris, who attended to buy furniture, sued for expenses. The court unanimously found the advertisement was an invitation to treat, not an offer, so Nickerson was not liable. Auctions are invitations to bid, not offers, so goods can be withdrawn without liability.

1. CASE STUDY ON HARRIS V.
NICKERSON(1873)
Made by:-
Shubham Bhatnagar
Enrolment no.-05917003918
MBA Div.A (1st Shift)

2. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CASE
Court: High Court,
Queen's Bench
Division
Place: Bury St.
Edmunds, United
Kingdom
Decided: 25th April,
1873
Judges Sitting:
Blackburn, Quain
and Archibald, JJ
Defendant:
Nickerson
Plaintiff: Harris
Concepts Involved:
Contract, offer,
auction, withdrawal
of goods

3. Facts about
the Case
Nickerson i.e. the defendant, an auctioneer, advertised in
the London papers that certain brewing materials, plant,
and office furniture would be sold by him at Bury St.
Edmunds on 14th August,1872 and two following days.
Harris i.e. the plaintiff, a commission broker in London,
having a commission to buy the office furniture, went
down to the sale.
On the third day, on which the furniture was advertised
for sale, all the lots of furniture were withdrawn. Upon
which the plaintiff brought an action against the
defendant to recover for his loss of time and expenses.

4. Issues Involved?
Whether Advertisement
constituted Offer or
Invitation to treat?
Whether at auction sale,
withdrawn of goods
made defendant liable to
plaintiff in eye of court?

5. What their
lawyers said?
• Macrae Moir, for the defendant, contended that it was
clear that the mere advertising of a sale did not amount
to a contract with anybody who attended the sale that
any particular lot, or class of articles advertised, would
be put up for sale.
• Warton, for the plaintiff, contended that the
advertisement of the sale by the defendant was a
contract by him with the plaintiff, who attended the sale
on the faith of it, that he would sell the property
advertised according to the conditions; and the
withdrawal of the property after the plaintiff had
incurred expenses in consequence of the advertisement
was a breach of such contract. A reasonable notice of
the withdrawal, at all events, ought to have been given.

6. The Judgement…
• Blackburn, J. founded his judgment that "any one
who advertises a sale by publishing an
advertisement [would become] responsible to
everybody who attends the sale for his cab hire or
travelling expenses“.
• Quain and Archibald, JJ. also drew public policy
arguments, emphasising that there existed no
authority on which to base a decision that the
Defendant be liable to indemnify all those who
attended his auction.
• The court held unanimously that the advertisement
did not constitute an offer, but rather was a mere
declaration of intent to sell the goods.
• Therefore, Harris lost the case.

7. Conclusion
• The case established that an
advertisement that goods will be
put up for auction does not
constitute an offer to any person
that the goods will actually be
put up, and that the advertiser is
therefore free to withdraw the
goods from the auction at any
time prior to the auction.
• So, we can say Auction is not an
offer, but it is an invitation to
offer.

8. Suggestions
In the advertisement, Nickerson mentioned that
brewing materials, plant, and office furniture
would be sold. So, he should not have withdraw
the sales of office furniture, even though he is
not liable to pay anything to anyone.
1
As it is a case of Invitation to treat, so Harris
should not have appealed for loss of time and
expenses incurred.
2