Opinion ID: 1379919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Binding Contract

Text: Yaffe contends that even if the auction was properly completed, there still remained an issue of fact for the jury with regard to the question of mutual assent. He says that he had been told by an employee of Heritage, in a telephone conversation, that the high bidder at the sale would get the property free and clear, that he attended the sale under that impression, that he had not noticed or understood the terms contained in the advertisement, and that he had not heard the trustee's soft-spoken announcements at the sale. He argues that the jury should have decided whether there was mutual assent to the terms of the contract purportedly made by the acceptance of his bid. In Definite Contract, we were presented with a similar set of facts. Although the advertisement of a foreclosure sale clearly stated that the sale would be subject to a prior deed of trust, and that fact was announced at the sale, the high bidder later contended that she had been unaware of the prior lien and refused to settle. When sued for a deficiency resulting from a resale at her risk, she asked to submit the issue to the jury upon an instruction to the effect that if she believed she was bidding upon the property free of liens, but the property was actually being sold subject to a prior lien, then no contract was ever formed. Holding that the court properly refused her proposed instruction, we said: Where the terms and conditions of an auction sale are plain and unambiguous and are plainly announced at the time and place of sale they are binding upon a purchaser at the sale, whether he heard them announced or not and though he may not have understood them.  158 Va. at 782, 164 S.E. at 565 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). That holding is dispositive of Yaffe's contention, and the trial court correctly ruled that no issue of fact remained to be determined by the jury.