Still dealing with the question of ratification Mr, Badeley said that if hho went into @ shop in Shay and said he was Hansons, and riered some books, then, as he was n the firm of Hansons\ the books would be supplied. If the firm of hansons wished, they could ratify th contract and take over the Books. The bookselling firm had given him credit and there was no question of using a person's name.
Samuel Rakusen was a tenant of E. D, Sassoon & Ca, between 1916 and 1920 and the plaintiff's did some business with him. When Samuel Rakusen went home his son took over-the business—there was never: an-actual partnership. The only S. Rakusen & Sons of which the plaintiffs had knowledge was the business in Whangpoo Road. His Lordship had stated that by the'
ture on the contract the plaintiffs were understood to mean the defendant firm, and the plaintiffs' assumption that such wax the ease was reasonable and justi-fable. The nomic was on the face of the contract, and the defendants ratified it. That was a question of fact found by the Court, and by their conduct' the appellants were estopped from denying it. The principle of estoppel was a rule of evidence which precluded the person from denying some statement made by himself. Where a person wil fully stated a thing that was tals: then he was estopped.
Rakusen had deliberately repro-sented thet the shipment was fron: tone branch to another and his Lordship had disbelieved his evidence as against that of Label and Gubbay. C. P. Rakusen now stated that he had told a lie, and, therefore, he was not at liberty now to say that it was not true. Mr. Newman had said that plaintiffs had not suffered from the misrepresentations made by C. P. Rakusen, because they were made after the contract had already been entered into with Samuel Rakusen, The contract definitely stated "your firm in Shanghai" and "your firm jin London," and, therefore, the plaintiffs would have been entitled fo say that they would not advance the mone shed Mr. Badeley in id] what way they would have been affected if the misrepresentations had been discovered, and Mr. Badeley replied that they, might have refused to go on with the "But how would it be to your detriment? Why should you object to goon with the contract?" askd his" Lordship. "The contract was made with Samuel Rakusen. Ta what way was your position altered when C, P. Rakusen came on the sec!
"Firm" Shipment Contended Mr. Badeley contended that the contract was for a "firm" shipment and the term of the contract had for been eat ried out. As it was a "riem" shipment they did not insist on a bill of exchange, thinking that Samuel Rakusen was the principal, They would have discovered. that Samuel" Rakusen was deceiving them, had the truth been told. The truth would have revealed the pot tion to them, The damage resulting from misrepresentation need not be proved, added Mr. Badeley, if che Falsehood. ware deliberate. "On the ground of equity one could not go Mtg Court and say "Told you a ies Replying to Judge Sir Henry Gollen, Mr. Badoley'said that they never complained of not receiving the draft' from London because they were perfectly. satisfied with the documents they had received.
At this juncture Me. Badeley referred to the evidence of the case Which showed that Sassoons know that there was no London house of the firm here before the. advances were made. They. had been informed that there was no Unndon haute and, therefore, it that the whole business That. not insist ona London draft, Accordingly they. set up" another contract, and they had the letters Stal verbal conversations and repre:
tions. He had relied on the dence ut Lobell and Gubbay me to far as ratincation "and estoppel The President's Questions Juige Sie Henry Gollan: Then you agree that there was an agree iment, partly written, parti verbal, between C. P. Rakusen and E. Sassoon' & Ca., Ltd Mr. Badeley "replied in the affirmative, and the Judge said that if ©. P. Rakusen had broken that contract then respondents hada Fight to bring an action against hie for breach of contract. - Why' had they not done so? The damages reference to another contract together.
Mr. Badeley replied that if the second contract Ind been put into the pleadings ho could have pleaded alternatively, but C. P. Rakusen fenuld not now deny what he hed Stig was pare of his own contract.
Judge Sir Henry Gollan: But you are not suing on that contract The real contract was male in London and it is no uso assuming the existence -of the other contract. The arrangements made hero were in pursuance of the terms of the Lonidon contract.
Mr. Badeley replied that out of his own mouth C. P. Rakusen was responsible. On the face of the contract which he pleaded he wag responsible, and he could not affirm and disaffirm at one and the same time. If the defence had pleaded the contract, the answer would have QO been "'the fall meaning of the cone tract is that you are indebted to "The President of the Court told Mr, Badeley that in the cireume stances all he eduld do was to bring an action for damages against C.
Rakusen: for misrepresentation, An action could be brought on his, wring statement regarding the. London house, That Abominable Word "Boost'
Mr, Badeley referred to the me consistency of the defence, and the President' interjected. that it was quite clear, and Mfr, Newman admitted quite frankly, that the reference to the London' house was merely a—Mr, Newman had used an abominable word—boost. Int other words C, P, Rakusen had told a lie, Mr. Newman had been very frank about the matter, As far ad the President could see, C, Py Rakusen had made a mistake For the appellant. Mr, Newman stated that his client, according to Mr. Badeley, knew the essential terms of the London contract. - He may have done s0, but he did not know of the amount of £1,500, which Sassoons were to receive, and neither did he know of the mise representations of his father. Noth ing that C. P. Rakusen did alter" ed the position of Sassoons one iota." As regards the question of estoppel' he did not see how the doctrine could be adopted in view of the evidence before the Court, Mr. Badeley would have to prove that Sassoons entered into the contract fas the result of the misrepresentae tions of C. P. Rakuseh. The mise statements made wore subsequent to the contract and did not alter the sumstanees, and they were made more by accident than anything else. He made them perhaps to convince Sassoons that he was bigger man than he really war The President of the Court said the ease would be taken into cone cluded, sideration and the hearing was eons
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.