1. Why wasn’t money an adequate remedy in this case?

2. What does Wilcox mean when he alleges that Shollmier engaged in collusion?

3. How could Wilcox have prevented the property from being sold below the appraised price at auction?

Wilcox Investment Limited Partnership (Wilcox) entered into a contract with Brad Wooley Auctioneers, Inc. (Auctioneers) to market and sell approximately 333 acres of real property owned by Wilcox in Arkansas. It was to be an “absolute” auction, meaning that the property would be sold to the highest bidder regardless of price. As the date of the auction approached,
Wilcox expressed reservations about the auction to Auctioneers but decided to go through with the auction because Auctioneers agreed to cancel the auction if the bidder turnout was low. Only four bidders attended the sale. Wilcox did not attend but was represented by two of his children and his attorney. According to Wilcox, Auctioneers agreed to postpone the sale. Auctioneers disputed that it agreed to halt the sale. In any case, Auctioneers started the bidding, and Shollmier was declared the highest bidder with a bid of $235,000. Wilcox, contending that the property was appraised in excess of $950,000, refused to complete the sale.

Shollmier sued Wilcox, asking the court for a remedy of specific performance to compel Wilcox to proceed with the sale. Auctioneers also filed suit to recover its commission. Wilcox argued that the sale was void because Shollmier engaged in collusion with Auctioneers during the bidding process. The jury found that Wilcox and Auctioneers entered into a contract to sell the real property at absolute auction to the highest bidder, that Shollmier was the highest bidder, and that Wilcox breached the auction contract and the purchase agreement. The court accordingly ordered Wilcox to convey the property to Shollmier. Wilcox appealed arguing, in part, that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy.

The Court of Appeals of Arkansas affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of Shollmier and Auctioneers. The court reasoned that there was no evidence of collusion and rejected Wilcox’s argument that the auction contract was void. The court held that Auctioneers had no duty to halt the auction and that Shollmier’s bid was made in good faith and not in conjunction with Auctioneers. Because money is not an adequate remedy, specific performance is appropriate.

In his response . . . Wilcox argued that there was a disputed issue of whether the Auctioneers breached their duty by continuing the sale after perceiving collusion . . . [The trial] court found that this issue was not material to Wilcox’s claims against the Auctioneers but that it would be dis-positive on Shollmier’s claim for specific performance against Wilcox. We now know from the final judgment that the issue of collusion was impliedly resolved against Wilcox by the jury in finding that Wilcox breached the purchase agreement.”