Validity of a Contract 'The question of whether a con tract' drawn up. by two. Chinese parties in a foreign language is Valid according to law was raised in the Special District Court on June 7 at the hearing of the ease in which the Yuen Hua Silk Ca, Wceal Chinese firm, was sued for alleged breach of contract.
plaintiffs, the Oriental Mercantile Ca, 63 Szechuc Road, whereby the latter would pure from them a big quantity of wool ran to be shipped. from abr'
hen the goods arrived in Chi defendants failed to tak resulting in damage estimated Tis, 19,060 to plaintiff who accord: ingly claimed go much from defend: ants. Plaintiffs stated the contract, was in English.
Defendants, represented by Dr, K. W. Chang, of the law firm of Messrs. Yeh & Ca., then raised the question of, whether a. contract, ween two Chinese parties was valid when it was in a foreign language. Counsel stated the plaintiff fir though it had a foreign name, wa owned and managed by Chinese. According to the law now in fore counsel continued, when both parti are Chinese, a proper contract between, them should be only In Chi nese language, otherwise it is nul and void.
Dr. Chang further stated that his clients' contract with the plaintiff firms was null and void for another reason, namely, that the plaintiff firm had entered into the contract by fraudulent means, The plaintiff said, put up a wean 'a Chinese fin), but ae a frith "defendants "in the' Chinese Court, with, Judge Ying sit ting, reserved its judgment until a Gate not yet Axed,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.