Page images
PDF
EPUB

The memo

randum

must be

the party

charged.

defendant subsequently wrote a letter to the plaintiff containing a complete acknowledgment of the contract except that it was silent as to the price; it was held that the defendant could not be charged upon this letter with the contract as made, because the letter imported a sale at a reasonable price and not at the shipping price; also that the defendant could not be charged upon the letter with a contract of sale at a reasonable price, because he might show by parol evidence that the contract in fact made was for a sale at the shipping price (a).

At a sale by auction upon certain conditions a note of the contract was made by writing the price and the purchaser's name in the catalogue opposite the lot purchased by him; the conditions were not annexed to the catalogue or referred to therein; it was held that the note was not sufficient as it did not contain the contract actually made (b). So, where a sale of goods was made with a stipulation as to their condition, the broker's sale-note omitting the condition was held not to be a sufficient memorandum of the contract (c).

[ocr errors]

The name of the party inserted in any part of the writing, in a manner to authenticate it, is a sufficient signing to sasigned by tisfy the statute (d). Thus, the forms " Mr. A. presents his compliments, etc." (e); "Mr. A. has agreed with, etc.” (ƒ), have been held sufficient. The subscription to a letter your affectionate mother," without signature of the name, was held not sufficient (g). A memorandum of a contract of sale written by the defendant in a book of his own in the form, "Sold J. D." (the defendant's name) etc., was held to be sufficiently signed by him, though his name did not appear elsewhere in the memorandum (h); so, a bill of parcels delivered by the defendant to a buyer of goods, in

(a) Acebal v. Levy, 10 Bing. 376.
(b) Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B.
& C. 945.

(c) Pitts v. Beckett, 13 M. &W.743.
(d) Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. &
W. 653, 659; Hubert v. Treherne,
3 M. & G. 743; and see Lobb v.
Stanley, 5 Q. B. 574; Stokes v. Moore,

1 Cox, 219.

(e) Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53. (f) Propert v. Parker, 1 R. & M. 625; Bleakley v. Smith, 11 Sim. 150. (g) Selby v. Selby, 3 Mer. 2.

(h) Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. & W. 653; and see Durrell v. Evans, 1 H. & C. 174; 31 L. J. Ex. 337.

which the defendant's name was printed at the commencement as the seller (a).

Articles of agreement were formally drawn up, containing the names of the several contracting parties in the commencement, and concluding "as witness our bands," but no signatures were appended; it was held not sufficiently signed within the statute, because the form of the instrument showed that it was intended that the names of the parties should be subscribed, and that the insertion of the names in the body of the instrument should not operate by way of signature (b). The name of the party occurring in a note of the agreement, drawn up as instructions to an attorney to prepare a lease, was held not to be a signature within the statute (c).

The defendant previously to the marriage of the plaintiff' with her daughter had verbally agreed to give her a marriage portion of £1000, and articles were executed settling the £1000; the defendant was not a party to the articles, but signed them as a witness, knowing their contents; the signature was held sufficient to satisfy the statute (1).

The initials of the name of a party used for the purpose of authenticating the memorandum are a sufficient signing; as where an auctioneer wrote in the catalogue the initials of the name of a purchaser against the lot purchased by him (e). Signing with a mark is sufficient (f). The signature may be printed (g). A signature in pencil of a memorandum written in ink would be sufficient, unless it appeared that the pencil marks were made for the purpose of deliberating upon the points marked, and not of finally authenticating the document (h).

A deed is valid if duly sealed and delivered, and does not

(a) Saunderson v. Jackson, 2 B. & P. 238; Schneider v. Norris, 2 M. & S. 286.

(b) Hubert v. Treherne, 3 M. & G. 743.

(c) Stokes v. Moore, 1 Cox, 219. (d) Welford v. Beazely, 3 Atk. 503; cited by Kindersley, V.C., Barkworth v. Young, 4 Drew. 1, 14; 26 L. J. C. 153, 158; and see per Lord Eldon, Coles v. Trecothick,

[blocks in formation]

The memo

randum need

the party charging the contract.

[ocr errors]

require to be signed by the party to be charged under the Statute of Frauds, although it relates to a matter within the statute (a).

It is sufficient under the statute that the note or merandot be morandum of the agreement in writing be signed by the signed by party to be charged therewith, and it is not necessary that the agreement or consent of the other party to the writing should be proved by writing or signature; hence a plaintiff may be able to charge the defendant upon a contract, upon which the defendant would fail to charge the plaintiff in an action for want of a note or memorandum in writing signed by him (b). But if a party to a contract. signs a document in a manner sufficient to bind himself, but upon the condition that he is not to be bound unless the other party also signs it, there is no valid contract until it is signed by both parties (c).

Signature

Specific performance will be decreed in equity in favour of a party who has not signed a written memorandum of the contract against a party who has signed; but in equity the former by filing his bill submits to the jurisdiction of the Court, and is compelled to perform the contract on his part in order to entitle him to specific performance from the other (d). And in an action at law, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show the performance on his part of all such parts of the contract as constitute conditions precedent to the liability of the defendant (e).

The memorandum may be signed by an agent of the by agent. party thereunto by him lawfully authorized. The authority of an agent to sign for his principal under the 4th and 17th. sections of the statute may be conferred without writing (ƒ).

(a) See ante, p. 77 n. (a).

(b) Egerton v. Mathews, 6 East, 307; Laythoarp v. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. 735; Sweet v. Lee, 3 M. & G. 452, 462 (a); Smith v. Neale, 2 C. B. N. S. 67; 26 L. J. C. P. 143; Warner v. Willington, 3 Drew. 523; Liverpool Borough Bank v. Eccles, 4 H. & N. 139; 28 L. J. Ex. 122; Reuss v. Picksley, L. R. 1 Ex. 342.

(c) See ante, p. 109.

(d) Martin v. Mitchell, 2 J. & W. 413, 426; Boys v. Ayerst, 6 Madd. 316, 321; and see Warner v. Willington, 3 Drew. 523, 532.

(e) See post, Chap. III, Sect. II.

(f) Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38, 46; per Tindal, C. J., Acebal v. Levy, 10 Bing. 376, 378. The first and third sections of the statute, relating to the creation of estates and interests in land, expressly require

A broker employed by both buyer and seller is the agent of both parties to sign a contract made within the scope of his employment (a). The defendant, having bought goods from the agent of the seller, requested him to write a note of the contract in his, the buyer's book, which the agent did, and signed it with his own name; it was held that there was no evidence that the defendant authorized the agent to sign for him, and that he was not bound by the signature (). Upon a sale of goods by the factor of the plaintiff to the defendant, the factor drew up a note of the sale in which he entered the name of the defendant as purchaser, and delivered it to the defendant, who requested an alteration to be made in it, which was done, and then accepted it; it was held that there was evidence of an authority in the factor to write the defendant's name (r).

An auctioneer is presumptively the agent for both the seller and the purchaser for the purpose of signing a memorandum of a sale by auction (7); but only during the auction, so that the authority was held not to extend to signing a contract for some unsold lots sold by the auctioneer to the defendant by private contract after the auction was over (). An auctioneer's clerk who is employed to write down the names of the purchasers is considered as authorized by them to do so (f). The owner of goods, put up to auction, having made a private agreement with the bidder as to the terms on which he might pay the purchase-money, it was held that the auctioneer was not authorized by the bidder to bind him to the published conditions of sale as to the mode of payment (g).

A solicitor employed to write down the terms of an agreement, as instructions for preparing a formal document, was

the authority of the agent to sign the writing within those sections to be conferred in writing.

(a) Goom v. Aflalo, 6 B. & C. 117; Pitts v. Beckett, 13 M. & W. 743; Sierewright v. Archibald, 7 Q. B. 103.

(b) Graham v. Musson, 5 Bing. N. C. 603.

(c) Durrell v. Evans, 6 H. & N. 660; 1 H. & C. 174; 30 L. J. Ex. 254; 31 ib. 337.

(d) Walker v. Constable, 1 B. & P. 306; Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C. 945, 917; Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38; White v. Proctor, 4 Taunt. 209; Hinde v. Whitehouse, 7 East, 558.

(e) Mews v. Carr, 1 H. & N. 481 26 L. J. Ex. 39.

(f) Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 443. (g) Bartlett v. Purnell, 4 A. & E. 792.

by agent.

Signature held not to be thereby constituted the agent of the parties to bind them by his signature of their names in the document (a).

One of the contracting parties cannot act as agent of the other contracting party to sign the contract for him (b). So, where the auctioneer himself sues as principal party to the contract for the price of the goods sold, which in general he may do, he cannot avail himself of his authority, as auctioneer, to sign the purchaser's name to the contract of sale, in order to charge the purchaser on the contract with himself (c). But the auctioneer's clerk, employed at the auction in writing down the purchasers' names, may be agent for the purchaser so as to charge him by his signature in an action brought upon the contract by the auctioneer (d).

Where an agent professes to sign for a principal, but without authority, a subsequent ratification of the signature by the principal is equivalent to a previous authority (e). Upon a sale by auction a memorandum of the contract was drawn up and signed by the purchaser, and also by the auctioneer's clerk expressly "as witness;" it was held that this signature by the clerk, excluding the character of agent, was not sufficient to charge the vendor, and could not be supported by a subsequent recognition (f).

If the agent is duly authorized, the signature of his own name will bind the principal (g).

The authority of the agent to sign may be countermanded at any time before the signing is completed. The defendant having authorized a broker to sell goods for him and the broker having sold them to the plaintiff, before the sale note was made out the defendant countermanded the authority of the broker; it was held that the contract could not be en

(a) Earl of Glengal v. Barnard,
1 Keen, 769.

(b) Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp.
203; Farebrother v. Simmonds, 5 B.
& Ald. 333, 335.
"This is very
doubtful law." Blackburn's Contract
of Sale, p. 76.

(c) Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B.
& Ald. 333.

(d) Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 443.

(e) Maclean v. Dunn, 4 Bing.722; Fitzmaurice v. Bayley, 8 E. & B. 661; 26 L. J. Q. B. 115; 27 ib. 143. (f) Gosbell v. Archer, 2 A. & E.

500.

(g) White v. Proctor, 4 Taunt. 209; Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C. 945; and see Graham v. Musson, 5 Bing. N. C. 603.

« EelmineJätka »