shock the conscience of the court and raise the presumption of fraud, unfairness or mistake. In re Stanley Engineering Corp., 164 F.2d 316, 318 (3d Cir.1947). Certainly, despite the lack of statutory direction, the absence of any notice to original bidders, whereby they fail to attend a related public auction sale, would constitute unfairness in the conduct of the sale and justify the setting aside of such a sale. We do not believe, as Mr. Zalevsky suggests, that imposing such a notice requirement oversteps the role of the courts and intrudes upon the domain of the legislature; that original bidders/proposed buyers receive notice of a public auction sale has long been recognized as a prerequisite to a fair judicial sale. See In re Times Sales Finance Corp., 445 F.2d 385 (3d Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); In re Lamont, 453 F.Supp. 608 (N.D.N.Y.1978);
recognizing original bidders as parties in interest and upholding bankruptcy court determination that judicial sale be overturned where original bidders did not receive notice major question found to be one of common decency holding that the original members of the musical group deep purple had not abandoned the name because they continued to receive royalties from the sale of their original recordings recognizing the legal principle that an order of sale is a public document and all bidders as well as other persons are charged with notice of its terms holding the sale valid as between the original parties despite noncompliance with the act recognizing rule and holding that judgment against original purchaser entered after original purchaser had assigned contract to buy did not establish lien on property