A firm of auctioneers sold some cattle to a customer, to whom in the usual course of their dealings they gave a week’s credit, and booked them to be conveyed by a railway company to the buyer. The account-sale bore that the sale was for cash, and the buyer was at the time in debt to the sellers for previous transactions. This debt was considerably reduced the day after the sale, but the sellers determined not to deliver the cattle in question without payment. They accordingly, upon the same day, cancelled the invoice, and re-booked the cattle to the same destination, but sent one of their servants to take possession of them. A telegram was at the same time sent by the officials of the railway company to the place of destination with instructions that delivery was on no account to be made to the buyer’s servant. The railway company disregarded these instructions, and delivered the cattle to the buyer’s servant. The auctioneers’ servant met the buyer the same day that he had got the cattle, and it was arranged that the latter should meet the former later in the day, and make payment to him. The auctioneers’ servant did not assent to the buyer selling the cattle, nor had he authority to give such consent. The buyer sold the cattle, and failed to pay anything to the auctioneers. The latter then raised an action of damages against the railway company for breach of contract and wrongous delivery. Held (1) that the sellers were entitled as undivested owners to retain the cattle in order to secure the balance due to them by the buyer on previous transactions; (2) that the railway company had been guilty of a breach of contract in disregarding the sellers’ instructions as to the delivery of the cattle; (3) that this breach of contract had not been condoned by the actings of the sellers’ agent; and therefore (4) that the railway company were liable for the price of the cattle.
Citations:
[1887] SLR 25 – 132
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Contract
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.614673
