The Bidder Who Wanted His Deposit Back
At a commercial equipment auction, bidder Okafor registers and pays a $5,000 refundable deposit, as required by the posted terms. He wins a lot for $22,000-a used forklift described in the catalog as 'runs and operates, hours unknown.' After winning, Okafor inspects the forklift and finds the hour meter broken and the mast leaking hydraulic fluid. He refuses to pay the balance, demands his $5,000 deposit back, and says the catalog description was fraudulent. The auctioneer, Priya, knows the consignor supplied the description and that Priya's staff did not test the machine. The posted terms state that all lots are sold 'as is, where is,' that descriptions are 'believed accurate but not guaranteed,' and that a defaulting bidder forfeits the deposit.
1. Is Okafor entitled to a refund of his deposit? Analyze the 'as is' terms against the catalog description.
Read the worked answer
The outcome turns on whether the catalog description was an express representation that became part of the bargain or mere opinion. 'Runs and operates' is a factual assertion, not puffery. 'As is' and 'not guaranteed' language generally disclaims implied warranties, but it does not automatically excuse a false statement of fact if the buyer reasonably relied on it. The 'hours unknown' caveat signals uncertainty about usage, not that the machine does not run. A leaking mast and broken hour meter may or may not contradict 'runs and operates.' Priya should not simply forfeit the deposit by reflex; she should determine whether the description was materially false. If it was, Okafor has a strong argument for rescission and return of his deposit. If the machine does run and operate despite the leak, the 'as is' terms likely control and the deposit may be forfeited under the posted default provision.
2. What should Priya do now, and what should she change for future sales?
Read the worked answer
Priya should pause collection, document the condition findings with photos, and review the consignor's representation and any inspection notes. She should attempt a good-faith resolution: if the description was materially inaccurate, refund the deposit and either re-offer the lot with a corrected description or return it to the consignor. If the description holds up, she should apply the posted default terms but explain them in writing. For the future, she should not publish 'runs and operates' without a documented inspection, should use precise condition language ('not tested; hour meter inoperable'), and should train staff that 'as is' is not a license to repeat unverified consignor claims. Clear, accurate descriptions reduce both disputes and forfeiture fights.