Remedies for Breach of Contract

Date: 

To: Les Agne, Attorney at law 

From: [Your Name] 

Re: Potential Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Specific Performance 

An auction is distinct process of selling goods and services where the items are offered up for bids, taking bids, and selling them to highest bidder in accordance to a contract stipulated between a seller and the auctioneer. The seller and the buyer who offers a bid are different from the regular sale process (Miller, 2013). The seller of the item does not make an actual offer, but rather performs so in the context of a contract between with the auctioneer. The offeror is the person making the bid or bidder, which in this case includes Pearl and Jade. The offeree is the one receiving the bid and may choose to accept or reject it which is Candie in the following case. Cassie plays the role of the auctioneer. Research has shown that auctions apply different rules as in the reserve or in the no-reserve price auction. 

Identifying whether an auction has a reserve or without reserve price is an essential component of determining how the contract is set. The reserve price auction includes a case where the seller has set a minimum price range within which he or she would wish to sell the product (Brandly, 2009). As a result, the auctioneer can determine when the bids on the goods can be stopped through the permission of the seller. In this regard, the seller also has the right to confirm or ejects a sale even after the hammer has fallen down. On the other hand, in an auction without reserve pricing, the seller has not right to stop the bids and must only sell to the highest bidder (Miller, 2013). It is evident that unless stated otherwise, it is recognized that every auction is with reserve. Therefore, all bidders are notified by the auctioneer that the sales made by the banging of the hammer are not final until they are confirmed by a seller. Throughout the bidding process, the auctioneer is in an oral contract with the bidders. 

The case study evidently shows that Pearl entered into a contract with the Auction House immediately she submitted the highest bid. It is evident that the auctioneer as an agent of the sale process has no direct duty to the seller, but should only abide by the rules of fairness in the bidding process (Miller, 2013). Cassie indicates that Jade had submitted a bid higher than that of Pearl and in so doing she is the rightful owner of the giraffe print dress made of silk, satin along with the velvet markings. Cassie is clearly not acting in good faith and she is being unethical as there was no such action that resulted in Jade outbid Pearl’s final bid. Cassie is also being unethical as an auctioneer (Brandly, 2009). The sale contract is however between Candie as the seller and Pearl as the buyer, which would mean that any legal suit would be brought against the former for breaching contract. 

Specific performance is recognized as a court order that is given to an accused party in cases where damages such as monetary compensation would not adequately serve as an appropriate remedy for the affected party (Miller, 2013). In this case, the dress is identified as the item in the contract that would not be compensated to Pearl using monetary means as the specific dress cannot be found in the market. The specific performance would require that Candie immediately turns over the dress to Pearl as a means of upholding the contract set. 

There are multiple defenses that the accused party may recognize as to why Pearl was outbid by Jade. The first would indicate that it is unclear whether or not the hammer had fallen marking the close of the sale (Miller, 2013). This incidence could be a major threat to Pearl’s case as it would mean that the auction was still open and other bidders could enter into the race to become owners of the merchandise. Alternatively, the defense may argue to identify that the auction was with reserve. All auctions are assumed to be with reserve, but it is unclear whether this fact was made clear to all the bidders. This would mean that the seller has the right to stop the bidding process and could reject the bid of the winning offeror. 

Through the assessment of this case, it is clear that Pearl has a strng foundation for filling a suit for breach of contract against the seller. The contract was fomed once the bidding process was closed by the auctioneer. At the closing of the ceremony, Pearl had been the highest bidder for the item. However, there are concerns based on the actual events taking place to determine the actual close of the bidding process and the very nature of the auction. 

References 

Brandly, M. (2009). The Three (3) Types of Auction Contracts . Retrieved from https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/the-three-3-types-of-auction-contracts/ 

Miller, R. L. (2013). Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized Cases , 9th Edition. [Kaplan]. Retrieved from https://kaplan.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781305482920/ .