Auctioneer is a “merchant” under Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and auction purchase of antique blanket chest is a “consumer transaction” under the Act

In Adam A. Weschler & Son, Inc. v. Klank, 561 A.2d 1003 (D.C. 1989), appellant, Weschler, conducted a public auction at its place of business in the District of Columbia. Weschler represented one of the items auctioned to be an antique blanket chest circa 1781, with an estimated value of eight to twelve thousand dollars. Weschler published a description of the chest and its estimated value in a catalog prior to the auction. Appellee, Richard Klank, was the high bidder, bidding twenty-one thousand dollars for the chest. Klank alleged that the chest was not as represented by Weschler and therefore refused to honor his high bid. Weschler filed suit in Superior Court seeking payment by Klank in accordance with Klank’s bid. Thereafter, Klank filed a complaint with the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (‘DCRA’) pursuant to the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C.Code §§ 28-3901 through 28-3908 (1981) (‘the Act’) alleging an unfair trade practice by Weschler. Klank then filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to D.C.Code § 28-3905(k) (4). The trial court granted Klank's motion to dismiss without prejudice, and Weschler appealed. Id.

“Weschler first argued that an auctioneer selling an antique blanket chest to a high bidder in an auction is not a ‘merchant’ as that term is used in D.C.Code § 28-3905(k)(4). D.C.Code § 28-3901(a)(3) defines ‘merchant’ as a person who does or would sell, lease (to), or transfer, either directly or indirectly, consumer goods or services, or a person who does or would supply the goods or services which are or would be the subject matter of a trade practice[.]” Id. at 1004.

The court of appeals discussing the case of Howard v. Riggs National Bank, 432 A.2d 701 (D.C.1981) stated that, “[t]his statutory definition has been further refined in Howard, where the court, citing legislative history, held that the term ‘merchant’ is not limited to the actual seller of the goods or services but includes those ‘connected with the ‘supply’ side of a consumer transaction.’” Id. (citing Howard, 432 A.2d at 709).

The court further added that, “[i]t was not clear from the record whether Weschler actually took title to the chest and then resold it at auction, or instead was merely auctioning for a fee items owned by others. Given the broad definition of ‘merchant,’ however, this distinction is irrelevant. Weschler, as an auctioneer, is an actor clearly ‘connected with the supply side’ of the transaction.” Id.

The Court of Appeals held that the auctioneer was ‘merchant’ under Consumer Protection Procedures Act, and auction purchase of antique blanket chest was ‘consumer transaction’ under the Act. Id.