Mound City Auctions

[Dr. Love]

As to whether the UCC Code applies. This speaks to the notion that bluechip could knowingly agree to forgo the no revival protection. From Mike Brandly's site.

 

"Can the auction bidder waive rights granted under state law?

 

We further this study of waiver of rights granted under state law with, “Can the auction bidder waive rights granted under state law,” in this regard: Let’s say that person attends an auction with the intent to register and bid on a few items. The auctioneer’s staff informs the prospective bidder he must sign and agree to the terms, including that if he bids, and the auctioneer accepts his bid, he may not retract his bid under any circumstances.

 

State law in 49 of the 50 states in the United States dictates bidders may retract their bid at an auction anytime, for any reason, up until the “fall of the hammer,” per the UCC 2-328. however, in our case here, let’s say the auctioneer’s terms and conditions require the bidders waive that right of retracting their bid.

 

So, our question is: Can the auction bidder waive the right of retraction granted by state law?

 

This issue for auctioneers, while different in different states, basically divides into three points:

 

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, the agreement with the auctioneer may be consented to, but may not be enforceable.

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, but some similar right is extended the bidder (which is deemed reasonable), the agreement with the auctioneer may be consented to, and the agreement is probably enforceable.

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, and results in a highly unfair, adhesionary relationship between the auctioneer and bidder, the agreement may be consented to, but the agreement will probably not be enforceable.

 

In summary, these types of auction issues don’t get into court very often. I would recommend auctioneers not require bidders to agree to terms and conditions counter to state law. Of, if an auctioneer feels he must have such terms and conditions, at least offer the bidders some other benefit or feature to help balance the agreement, and maintain a reasonable contractual arrangement.

 

I recommend this for auctioneers too, because we in the auction business must remember that usually a court views us as the professionals, and our bidders (buyers) as members of the public. If a certain passage in an agreement is to get the attention of a court, it will likely be a passage that is to the detriment of the bidder (buyer), rather than to the detriment the auctioneer."

[fantastic_four]

That's why I say that the best thing that came out of this entire thread is the awareness (in detail) that the practice is out there. More knowledge is better and knowledge only comes out through discussion.

 

Did you bid in this auction Roy?

 

Nope. I shared earlier in this thread that I only bid in their big 2009 auction when the original Mound City collection was found. Haven't bid in one since. I rarely bid in auctions - I often don't have the time to scroll through the numerous auctions out there.

 

Either I'm confused, or you are...I thought we had been talking about bluechip bidding in that same 2009 auction this whole time. It's probably me, and I just assumed it when bluechip and Rob referred to the auction as having taken place three years ago.

[mysterio]

Maybe I am misreading, but it would seem that 2-328 (4) would also apply and would allow blue chip to have backed out.

[MusterMark]

That's why I say that the best thing that came out of this entire thread is the awareness (in detail) that the practice is out there. More knowledge is better and knowledge only comes out through discussion.

 

Did you bid in this auction Roy?

 

Nope. I shared earlier in this thread that I only bid in their big 2009 auction when the original Mound City collection was found. Haven't bid in one since. I rarely bid in auctions - I often don't have the time to scroll through the numerous auctions out there.

 

Either I'm confused, or you are...I thought we had been talking about bluechip bidding in that same 2009 auction this whole time. It's probably me, and I just assumed it when bluechip and Rob referred to the auction as having taken place three years ago.

 

bluechip bid in a 2010 auction. Roy bid in a 2009 auction. Both have been stated in this thread several times.

 

[MusterMark]

As to whether the UCC Code applies. This speaks to the notion that bluechip could knowingly agree to forgo the no revival protection. From Mike Brandly's site.

 

"Can the auction bidder waive rights granted under state law?

 

We further this study of waiver of rights granted under state law with, “Can the auction bidder waive rights granted under state law,” in this regard: Let’s say that person attends an auction with the intent to register and bid on a few items. The auctioneer’s staff informs the prospective bidder he must sign and agree to the terms, including that if he bids, and the auctioneer accepts his bid, he may not retract his bid under any circumstances.

 

State law in 49 of the 50 states in the United States dictates bidders may retract their bid at an auction anytime, for any reason, up until the “fall of the hammer,” per the UCC 2-328. however, in our case here, let’s say the auctioneer’s terms and conditions require the bidders waive that right of retracting their bid.

 

So, our question is: Can the auction bidder waive the right of retraction granted by state law?

 

This issue for auctioneers, while different in different states, basically divides into three points:

 

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, the agreement with the auctioneer may be consented to, but may not be enforceable.

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, but some similar right is extended the bidder (which is deemed reasonable), the agreement with the auctioneer may be consented to, and the agreement is probably enforceable.

- If the bidder waives a right that otherwise state law grants, and results in a highly unfair, adhesionary relationship between the auctioneer and bidder, the agreement may be consented to, but the agreement will probably not be enforceable.

 

In summary, these types of auction issues don’t get into court very often. I would recommend auctioneers not require bidders to agree to terms and conditions counter to state law. Of, if an auctioneer feels he must have such terms and conditions, at least offer the bidders some other benefit or feature to help balance the agreement, and maintain a reasonable contractual arrangement.

 

I recommend this for auctioneers too, because we in the auction business must remember that usually a court views us as the professionals, and our bidders (buyers) as members of the public. If a certain passage in an agreement is to get the attention of a court, it will likely be a passage that is to the detriment of the bidder (buyer), rather than to the detriment the auctioneer."

 

Thanks, Dr. Love. Great info.

So I wonder then what the auctioneer contract actually said about retracting bids (if anything). Even though it appears as if that may not have been enforceable any way ...

 

ANOTHER possibility is:

The UCC Code may have been made prior to the advent of Internet bidding when it is allowed to occur during Live Bidding.

Would it still apply FULLY then, to Internet bidding when it is an adjunct to Live Bidding? (bluechip was an Internet bidder).

Would the auctioneer be "within their rights", so to speak, to make a claim that due to the vagaries of Internet bidding, its Newness, its peculiarities, etc, the UCC Code (and/or state law) does not FULLY apply, and in particular to this topic of bid retraction?

 

[arexcrooke]

Here is an idea:

Dont have anyone but those interested in bidding on the item bid and we dont have to split hairs on this

Dont have shill/reserve bidding/auctioneers wife bidding things up or however this wants to be parsed and then we dont have these issues do we?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Their argument should be that advancing the reserve is not "bidding".

 

 

Has anyone else ever run across a reserve auction that when

1. live bidders do not meet the reserve

2. auctioneer allows the high bidder to advance his price

3. gives the seller the option of accepting the last price offered by the bidder

 

Basically turning the auction into a "make an offer"?

This is obviously how they handled it.

Surely no internet platform would have had reserve auction terms listed as such.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Kudos again to Dr. Love for his research on this issue.

 

A couple of more points:

 

1. In a couple of places in the quoted material there is a statement that 49 out of 50 states base their auction law on this section of the UCC. I assume "base" means that the states don't necessarily adopt the language verbatim. So it's possible that Missouri law allows an auctioneer to enforce the next highest bid should the highest bid be withdrawn. It's too bad that MCA appear to have abandoned this thread; it would interesting to hear their understanding of Missouri law.

 

2. I'm no lawyer, but failing a contrary provision in Missouri law, the statement in the UCC that: "In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid." would seem to indicate that bluechip should not have been obliged to buy the comic. If push came to shove and the point were litigated, I'm skeptical that an auctioneer's "house rules" would trump the UCC.

 

Really interesting and informative thread set off by an innocuous question about MCA.

[MusterMark]

Kudos again to Dr. Love for his research on this issue.

 

 

I assume "base" means that the states don't necessarily adopt the language verbatim. So it's possible that Missouri law allows an auctioneer to enforce the next highest bid should the highest bid be withdrawn.

 

 

Really interesting and informative thread set off by an innocuous question about MCA.

 

 

 

Agree on Dr. Love.

 

Interesting point on the word "base". Yes, it would be good to know more about what the MO law actually says on that topic.

 

Yes, agree on your last point too! Very interesting and informative thread.