Chapter 7: Comparative analysis
The analysis in this chapter focuses on the results of the foregoing research in a comparative approach. Interestingly, in all three jurisdictions, the legal relationships arising at an auction sale are subject to controversy. Such controversy is mainly due to a divergence between the wording of the contractual terms and conditions of sale versus the factual situation actually present at the time of sale. Section 1 examines the controversial aspects of legal relationships that arise in the sale of sleepers at auction – that is, within the parties to the sale contract and the auctioneer’s dual representation.
In Section 2, the analysis centres on the difficulties in assessing diligence, particularly the challenges posed by standards the courts have established and refer to when assessing the auctioneer’s diligence.
Section 3 looks at divergences between the auctioneer’s approach with regard to consignors and to purchasers. In other words, it examines how liability can be disclaimed at the exact same time that authenticity can be guaranteed.
Legal relationships differ among the three examined jurisdictions. The main difference resides in that the auction house is arguably a party to the sale contract under the Swiss indirect representation scheme, whereas it is not a party to the sale contract under both English and United States law. This difference is discussed in the first following section.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.