N agreed to sell to L certain premises in Chinnor for andpound; 590 and gave him a receipt for a andpound; 50 deposit. The receipt, which was regarded by both parties as their contract, was in the following terms: ‘Received of [L] the sum of andpound; 50 on the purchase price andpound; 590 for the house and premises and land . . The balance of the purchase price to be paid on or before March 25th 1918. Purchase price andpound; 590. Deposit andpound; 50. Balance andpound; 540.’ N signed the receipt. L sent the receipt to his solicitor with instructions to carry out (i.e. complete) the agreement which L had made. N’s solicitor sent to L’s solicitor a draft contract. L’s solicitor wrote back on 8th February: ‘I need not trouble you to send me another contract as the one which your client has signed is, I think quite sufficient’. The ‘one which your client has signed’ was a reference to the signed receipt.
Held: The letter of 8th February was authorised by L because instructions to complete impliedly authorised, when necessary, the affirmation on behalf of the client, of the contract made by him and, because the solicitors were so authorised, the receipt was a sufficient memorandum for the purposes of the Statute.
Judges:
Younger J
Citations:
[1919] 1 Ch 378
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another ComC 21-Jan-2011
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.430069
