Buyer accidentally offers €23 mio on hotel: should he decline?

An auction buyer ‘accidentally’ makes a bid for a vacant hotel of as much as €23 million. This happened to a real estate trader from Lelystad. According to the trader, he had not wanted to offer such a high price at all, but ‘only’ € 2.3 million. The man would have typed one ‘zero too many’. Therefore, according to him, no purchase agreement would have come about. He had also never wanted to buy the hotel for the price he had offered. Seller and buyer were recently in court. The stakes of the proceedings were lifting of attachments which seller had laid. However, the judge did not believe there was a typographical error. But then what was going on? We read about it in the judgment of Feb. 17, 2026, published only this week (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:695).

Execution auction of “Chinese ghost hotel”

From the media it appears that the case involves a badly run hotel in Hoofddorp, near Schiphol Airport known locally as Chinese Ghost Hotel. The defendant in this case is a mortgagee who gave to the hotel owner a loan had provided. After the municipality of Haarlemmermeer foreclosure had laid on the hotel, the mortgagee took over the foreclosure and initiated auction proceedings.

Property dealer types ‘zero too many’ and offers €23m instead of €2.3m

The real estate trader made a bid of €23,010,000 at the auction. This bid was accepted. However, the real estate trader did not fulfill his obligation to pay the bid price. He says he never intended to bid this price. The mortgage holder is of the opinion that simply a purchase agreement is established, and then dissolves it because the auction buyer fails to fulfill it. Instead, the mortgagee claims the agreed penalty of 15% of the bid made. That penalty is due under the general auction conditions for Internet auctions (AVVI 2015).

Fine due to typographical error of €3,451,000.

That penalty amounts to €3,451,000. The mortgagee then imposes batter on a number of properties from the real estate dealer. The latter then claimed in summary proceedings lifting of those attachments. However, the judge does not agree. He does not believe the auctioneer's story. He finds it implausible that a typing error was made.

Lawyer explains what happens after an auction purchase

Judge finds typographical error implausible

The real estate trader says that he had intended to bid only €2.3 million, but according to the judge that is not true. In fact, the first bid made by the auction buyer was already €12.5 million. That amount was therefore already higher than the €2.3 million he claims to have wanted to bid. Therefore, by the unconditional acceptance of the other party of the dealer's bid, according to the Court in preliminary relief proceedings, a purchase agreement established, which the trader cannot get out of.

However, there was an even higher bid

An important detail is that there was even an even higher bid. The real estate trader therefore indicates that the hotel should have been awarded to the highest bidder. However, the mortgagee did so, but under a condition precedent which was subsequently not met. Indeed, the mortgagee required that buyer to make a deposit. Indeed, the highest bidder was a director of the company that leased and operated the hotel. Therefore, there was reason not to award to this highest bidder without conditions.

Auction buyer is stuck with the purchase

Therefore, this auction buyer is stuck with his purchase. In doing so, the preliminary injunction judge also found relevant that this buyer is not a consumer. A consumer receives additional protection, but a real estate trader can be expected to be familiar with how the auction platform works. Especially since this trader had already purchased six properties using an auction platform.

Last resort, penalty clause unreasonably onerous?

The trader defended himself by claiming that the penalty clause was unreasonably onerous and therefore inapplicable. The court did not go along with this either. The penalty clause is in fact very common in real estate transactions. It is an incentive for parties to fulfill their obligations, and has a deterrent effect. Even if the bottom court believe that the fine should be mitigated, it is not foreseeable to what extent the fine would be mitigated. For this reason, too, the attachments need not be lifted. All the more so since it is plausible to the interim relief judge that the seller damage suffered because the merchant failed to comply.

Perhaps there may be further recourse in the proceedings on the merits to mitigation of fine, but whether the courts will then go along with it remains to be seen. After all, not only does the fine have the function of fixing damages, but it also involves a incentive function from.

Purchase of real estate comes close and consequences dire

A lot can go wrong when buying real estate. Consumers are therefore protected by a written requirement, but it does not apply to professional parties or commercial real estate. So in doing so, you are soon stuck with a purchase agreement. It is true that a stupid buyer of a golf course for €1 million came in 2023 shortchanged as a result of his drunkenness, and were the words “We have a deal.” in response to a price proposal of €5 million not enough for a real deal because there were still various issues to discuss were, but as you read in this blog, you don't get off so easily in an auction. What you also have to be careful with is who bids for you and how who does. For example, in 2024, the Court of Appeals held that a buyer was not bound by any proposal his broker had made.