Short answer. The officer may resell the property to the highest bidder without being responsible for any resulting loss, though the court may order the refusing purchaser to pay that loss plus costs into court, and may hold them in contempt for disobeying. Future bids from that purchaser may also be refused.
What the law says
If a purchaser refuses to pay the amount bid by him for property struck off to him at a sale under execution, the officer may again sell the property to the highest bidder and shall not be responsible for any loss occasioned thereby; but the court may order the refusing purchaser to pay into the court the amount of such loss, with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys the order. The amount of such payment shall be for the benefit of the person entitled to the proceeds of the execution, unless the execution has been fully satisfied, in which event such proceeds shall be for the benefit of the judgment obligor. The officer may thereafter reject any subsequent bid of such purchaser who refuses to pay.
Rule 39, Section 20 — Refusal of purchaser to pay. Read the full provision →
Immediate remedy: resale, without officer liability
If a purchaser refuses to pay the amount he bid for property struck off to him at an execution sale, the officer may simply sell the property again to the highest bidder, without being held responsible for any loss that the refusal caused. This lets the sale move forward without penalizing the officer for a buyer's bad faith, and without having to restart the entire auction process from scratch or delay the underlying execution any longer than necessary. The officer's role here is purely administrative, moving straight to a resale rather than pausing the whole execution to sort out what to do about the defaulting bidder.
The court can still make the refusing bidder pay, on pain of contempt
That does not mean the refusing purchaser walks away free of consequence: the court may order him to pay into court the amount of the resulting loss, together with costs, and may punish him for contempt if he disobeys that order. The amount recovered this way benefits whoever is entitled to the proceeds of the execution, or the judgment obligor himself if the execution has already been fully satisfied by the time the resale takes place. This two-track approach lets the execution proceed immediately through resale while still preserving a separate remedy against the bidder who caused the loss in the first place.
Barring the purchaser's future bids
On top of these remedies, the officer is also authorized to reject any subsequent bid from a purchaser who has previously refused to pay, protecting future sales from being disrupted by the same bidder again. Together, these remedies discourage bidders from making bids they have no intention of honoring, which would otherwise undermine the reliability of execution sales generally, and give the officer a practical tool to filter out bidders with a track record of reneging.
Related provisions
- Rule 39, Section 20 — Refusal of purchaser to pay
- Rule 39, Section 19 — How property sold on execution; who may direct manner and order of sale
- Rule 39, Section 21 — Judgment obligee as purchaser