Appeal on Futures Transaction Confirmation of a judgment render. ed by the Lower Court in favour of fan American firm is contained in an Important decision just delivered by the Second Branch Kiangsu High Court, awarding $13,508 damages to Messrs, Rosenfeld & Son, 113 Kiu-Kiang Road, against Mr, L. Z. Koo. Messrs. Rosenfeld & Son brought an action in the Settlement Chinese Court for the recovery of $14,928 a1 Yosses alleged to have been sustained on three contracts ventered Into. by Mr, Koo for the purchase of cotton and wheat on the New York Ex change. The firm alleged that a votal of 1,000 bales of cotton and 25,000 Dushels of wheat were bought, due at future dates, that prices of these commodities dropped, that they were compelled to sell them, and thereby suffered losses amounting to $14,928. The Lower Court gave a decision in favour of the firm for $14,508, whereupon Mr. Koo, who contended the transactions were gambling, appealed 1 the High Court, which now has Aismissed his appeal.
The High Court's judgment stated that Mr, Koo's appeal was based on three grounds, namely, (1) the con tracts of sale and purchase are gam ling; (@) they are contrary to the Provisions of the Exchange Law; and the attracts have not yet come into force, because the mat not been paid. The ruling continu.
"tu the contracts, the respondents declared that actual delivery of the goods was contemplated and the appellants agreed. It is, therefore, possible for the appellant to asia for Selivery. of goods after maturity. Prices of the cotton and wheat were provided for in the contracts, and the quality of the goods is acdording to the standard provided for by the Ministry of Agriculture of the USA. Tnasmuch as the price, quality, and the terms of delivery were stipulated, they are naturally. trans-factions with definite terms. The contention of the appellant that they are gambling transactions is quite with out. foundation.
"With regard to the second point, the appellant instructed the respond-cents to buy cotton and wheat from the exchanges of New York and Chi-cage. Although the act of instruct ing was done in Shanghai, the act buying and selling was done in the Exchanges of the US.A, so it is im-Possible 't> soply the provisions of the Chinese Exchange Law. Moreover, Jin the contracts for the purchase of cotton between the parties, it is 'Set out that it is entirely subject to the' rules and regulations of the Cotton Exchennge of New You and Act of Cotton Futures of the USA. and in the contract for purchase of wheat it Is set out that the regula tions and Act of the Department of Commerce of Chicago are to apply.
then very apparent—that American law is to apply according the idea of the parties.
"With regard to the third point, the contracts cannot be taken to mean that they come into effect on condition that the margin is paid. The appellant is under obligation to pay; margin according to the contracts and cannot maintain that the contracts have not come into effect by making pretext that the margin has not been aid. Moreover, the appellant has already paid $7,200 of margin, a fact acknowledged by himeelf. His con-"tention then, can hardly be admitted og founded.' The appellant had no dispute in the Lower Court on the fact and merely contended that the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.