The details of the contract are here:

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/10/senior-counsel-assisting-the-royal-commissions-serious-error-about-the-law-regarding-auctions-and-th.html

SteveJ writes:

So the position with Kerr St was

1.The Agent had the deposit.

2. The deposit was made by cheque in Blewitts name. So it looks like he has knowledge of what is happening. I’m leaving aside any issues of estoppel re Blewitt ( in any case he was part of the fraud).

3.Blewitts solicitors were S&G and what do you know; the Partner who actually prepared the POA was present.

4.If it turns out that there is no POA or he exceeded his authority in some other way the vendors can have a go at Wilson on either of the above bases;

5.The situation is no different, effectively, to what would apply if Wilson had signed as purchaser in his own right.

6.The Agents are entitled to accept Wilson at his word and anyway its not hard to imagine Gillard may have provided some reassurance.

7 The auction is over, the crowd is gone, Wilson is waving a cheque in front of their noses, why wouldn’t they sign?

The end result is that far from being reluctant to sign the contract without sighting the POA the Agent would have been an idiot if he didn’t.

To reiterate; they have the deposit, the bloke standing in front of them is liable if he has exceeded his authority, Blewitt is liable if he hasn’t.

How are they any worse off than if Wilson had simply signed in his own name, paid the deposit and then defaulted on settlement.

They aren’t!!

Steve