The Gazette 1967/71

dispute respecting a bid within the meaning of condition 2 of the National Condtioins of Sale and he put the property up for resale. The plain tiff eventually purchased the property for £37,500 but then refused to sign the memorandum and the auctioneer signed it on his behalf. The plain tiff then brought an action against the vendors, for specific performance of the contract at £26,000 and alternatively, damages against the auctioneers for failing to sign a memorandum of sale at £26,000. The action against the plaintiff was dis continued. This was an appeal against the decis ion of the trial judge dismissing the action against the auctioneer the grounds of appeal being there was no dispute respecting a bid within condition 2. Held; there was a dispute within the meaning of condition 2. The appeal was dismissed. (Richards v. Phillips & Oats, 1968 2. WLR. 14.) Road Traffc Act—breach of statutory duty giving rise to Civic Liability A car was parked without negligence by the third party opposite a road marking in contravention of reg. 23 (2) (a) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964, and this had a causative effect on an accident resulting in injury to the plaintiff a passenger in a vehicle driven negligently by the second defendant and owned by the first defendant. The defendants admitted liability and claimed contribution from the third party based on breach of statutory duty in parking his car. No negligence at common law was found against the third party. In his judgement Ashworth J. referred to London Passenger Transport Board v. Upson (1949) A.C. 155 in which is was held that a breach of the Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Regulations 1941 gave rise to a civil liability to a person who was knocked down. It was argued here that the 1941 regulations were designed to protect pedestrians while those of 1964 were of general application and the breach could not give rise to civic liability at all. His lordship took the viw that both regulations were designed in the first place to avoid accidents and prevent injury. Persons in breach of them must in the nature of things be adding to the probabilit ies that accidents would follow. Having established the breach, the defendants were entitled to say that the third party had contributed to the accid ent. His lordship assessed the third party's liability in the circumstances of accident, at a very low 16

would be a violation of the rule of natural justice audi alteram partem. The Court cannot give it self jurisdiction by inviting the person (as the prisoner was invited in this case) to make his case as that would be an abrogation of the legal effect of abandonment. Accordingly the Court of Crim inal Appeal had no jurisdiction to make the order which it made and the warrant of that Court was not a good justification for the prisoner's detention. In the Central Criminal Court before Mr. Jus tice Butler the prisoner had been sentenced to 7 years penal servitude but it was ordered that if certain conditions were fulfilled he should be re leased after serving 3 years. The condition imposed was that the prisoner after 36 months should enter into a bond having observed prison discipline. Neither the sentence of 7 years nor the sentence of 36 months could stand unless the proviso was held good. The objections to this sentence could not be disposed of by saying that it was valid at any rate for 36 months; to construe it in that way would do violence to the clear intention of the trial judge as expressed in the form of sentence. To de termine the duration of the prisoner's detention under this sentence it would be necessary to de cide whether or not he had observed prison dis cipline during the 36 months. This decision would have to be made by prison officials and this amounted to delegation of a function which under the constitution was reserved to the Judic iary and accordingly the sentence was bad. The judge did not consider it necessary to deal with the submission on behalf of W. that the Court of Criminal Appeal was itself unconstitutional in so far as it was the Court of Appeal from the High Court sitting as the Central Criminal Court. (Ex parte Woods: 30th May, 1968. Supreme Court). Contract—"Dispute respecting a Bid" Property was auctioned with a reserve of £25,800. Bidding opened at £10,000 and the only bidders were the plaintiff and the auctioneer on behalf of the Vendors. The plaintiff bid £26,000 and the property was knocked down to him. Immediately D, who was sitting at the front, below the auction eer claimed that the property had been knocked down to him, at £26,000 and that he had bid by raising his catalogue. This action had been un noticed by the auctioneer but seen by his two clerks. The auctioneer decided that there was a