A case of some mercantile interest was heard at the Supreme Court on Tuesday and, deciding as it did to a certain extent position of a broker in the negotiation of a contract of sale, we are glad to be in a position to lay the particulars of it before our readers. As the matter wore somewhat the appearance of a submission to ar-bit ration rather than of ordinary litigation, we suppress the names of the parties, substi-tating A (a foreigner) for the buyer, who was plaintiff, B for the seller, the defendant, and C the broker.
'A engaged C to procure for hima certain -quantity of Camlets. B offered Ca quantity, but for which he would only negotiate on the arrival of the steamship Avon. ©, in ande down the Bund, read Aten, s.s., on the Customs' board, and he forthwith reported it to B. Some mediation regarding the price followed, and on the same day, it was agreed ata certain figure per bale, and © thereupon disclosed who the buyer was. Early next morning C forwarded the contract note to B. B having in the meantime discovered that it was not the steamship that had arrived} wrote to C cancelling the contract concluded upon the previous day on the understanding that the Aron had arrived; and the two communications crossed each other on the road. The contract note stated that the delivery was to be completed within three weeks, and the payment by five days' order. To the former term B decidedly demurred as ever having agreed to. In regard to the second, C ac-
Knowledged that no understanding was come to between him and B touching the manner of payment. He had put it down. as such because he wanted to get the best terms for his principal. It was very often the mode of payment in dealing with Chinese. He had acted likewise in other negotiations that he had been engaged in, and no objection had been raised against it. A, on being informed that B had cancelled the contract, refused to agree to it. It does not appear that A was over informed that the arrival of the Avon was a condition of the contract, and the price of Camlets was gradually rising in the market. At the expiry of the three weeks, A tendered B the purchase money, which he refused, and the case was instituted by way of recovering, as damages for the breach of the contract, the difference between the contract price and the price Camlets were sold for, of the same quality, on the date they should have been delivered to A under the contract, The facts, except the time of delivery, were agreed to both parties, and the case resolved itself into a question whether the contract was binding on B.
B contended that the arrival was a mat-rial condition of the contract. He admitted that the report was made by C, in good faith. Had the' Avon arrived he would probably have still disacknowledged the contract as binding on him, because the terms the note contained had not, been agreed to by him. It was never his habit to sell to a foreigner at three weeks' delivery. It had been invariably at two weeks. As for the five days' order, he would not have accepted it. Supposing the buyer had failed in the meantime, his name not being on the order, B would not have had any claim upon him, though the goods had left his. godown. It was true he did not know who the purchaser was at the time.of concluding the contract, but he know it before he got the note, Ifhe had received the contract note on the same day, instead of next morning, he would have cancelled it, ashe did those he entered into with some Chinese on that day. If the price had fallen during the fortnight between entering into the contract and the arrival of the Avon; having cancelled the agreement, A would probably have forced him to abide by that, but now that the price had risen he wished to force him to stand by the contract, 'A, supported by ©, contended that the information of the arrival of the Avon given by Oto Bwas made in good faith. IFE had sent in the contract on the 17th instead of the 18th, B would not have returned it, because B had concluded other similar bargains on that day. C was quite positive that the term of three weeks was agreed to by B, though he was ignorant of the term of payment.
The Judge held that the contract was concluded when the seller agreed to the price of the Camlets and the name of the buyer was disclosed to him. It was true hewasacting under erroneous belief thatthe Avon wasin. But the bargain was unconditional There was a difference of testimony about the time of delivery, but that did not affect the fact of a contract
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.