Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1881 Newspaper report

Options
  • 28-11-2012 3:38pm
    #1
    Portlaoise Pictures
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭


    All this research must be gone to my head.... Am I missing something here? I don't understand how the tenants got the animals back 'for a lot less than the rents on account of which they had been seized'. To prevent this, why didn't Goddard simply raise the bid each time the tenants bid?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,056 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Portlaoise Pictures wrote: »
    All this research must be gone to my head.... Am I missing something here? I don't understand how the tenants got the animals back 'for a lot less than the rents on account of which they had been seized'. To prevent this, why didn't Goddard simply raise the bid each time the tenants bid?

    Perhaps he didn't realise that the winning bidders were representing the tenants?


  • Options
    #3
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,444 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Goddard would have been bidding, effectively, with the landlord's money. So if Goddard had made the successful bid, the landlord would have got zero. Whereas if the animals were knocked down to some other bidder for, say, half the arrears of rent, then the landlord would at least have got half of what was due to him. Hence Goddard's role was to bid up the auction, but not actually to win it. And if, through a "combination" organised by the Land League or some similar body, there was only one other bidder, representing the tenants, there wasn't much Goddard could do to drive up the auction without actually winning it, which would have been a bad outcome for the landlord.


Advertisement