agent to purchase a property at an auc- tion sale is affected by notice of an equity which has come to the knowledge of his agent in the course of the transaction. See G. B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950) 13 W.A.C.A. 63 at 67. A vendor is not an agent of the purchaser, therefore, notice to the vendor or his agent cannot be imputed to the purchaser since the whole basis of the equitable principle of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice is to protect a purchaser from the fraud of his vendor. However, the purchaser will be bound by such notice if there is evidence that he had any such notice, actual or constructive. See Omosanya v. Anifowoshe (1959) 4 F.S.C. 94 at 99 Barristers and solicitors are, in most cases, agents of purchasers for the purposes of purchasing land. 'It has been said over and over again that notice to a solicitor of a transaction, and about a matter as to which it is a part of his duty to inform himself, is actual notice to the client. Mankind would not be safe if it were held that, under such circumstances, a man has not notice of that which his agent has actual notice of.' Per Lord Hatheley in Rolland v. Hart (1871) L.R 6 Ch. 678 at 681-2. See further Jared v. Clements (1903) 1 Ch.428. Notice or information acquired by a solicitor in a previous transaction used to affect through the doctrine of imputed notice, his principal in a subsequent transaction. See Okunubi v. Assaf (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 226 and Fuller v. Ben- nett (1843) 2 Hare.394. This rule is capable of producing untold hardship if notice in every trans- action that comes to the solicitor is imputed to his principals in subsequent transactions. The rule was modified in Mountford v. Scott.(1823) Turn & R 275; 37 E.R 1105. Now, information acquired by a solicitor in one transaction