When a Contract to Sell Lumber Must Be in Writing 



III im»t ■>! tlir -tatm tlu-r.' lit iii l..r.i> n lii» wlii.li |.r.ni.loi., i 

 effeel, Uuit no eontrort to m<ll |K'riK(niil iiropcrty iit ii price of ♦ou 

 or more iihall I* vnliil unlpw tJio liuyor nror|it)> niul nctuiilly roecivcii 

 part of tlir ko*"'*- "f' »»'>•"'* » IMiymciit on the |>rif<<, or iiiiIpm tin" 

 eontrart or .-onip iioto or iiu'iiuiriiiuliiiii thi-roof lx> roiluecil to writiiii;. 

 This law liu» Uvii fiiiirt(><l to minimize o|i|>ortunity for fmuil nntl 

 111!- in im|H)rtant commoroiiil triinnnctionn. Wo undcr- 



Kt ■■ not !• not in force in Loiiisiniin, nml ono or two 



of ;tioii» to it, but, otlii'rwim". it is unifoniily 



0| . _ ■ iiitry. In a few utiitcs, liowpver, oral con- 



tiaet* of sale involving $30 or more nre uovernc.l liy this liiw, wliirli 

 eon5titutes a part of what is technically known ns the Statute nf 

 Frauiin. 



To meet tlic requirements of the statute, it is not necessary that a 

 formal contract be entered into; a nieiiiorKniUini, howsoever informally 

 writt«'a, is .iiiflioicnt if it discloses the ess^ential terms of sale. Tims 

 a letter, telo);ram or reoeijit may be an adequate memornnilum, and a 

 signed oflfor binds the i>erson who makes it. 



To snti.^fy the requirement of the Statutes of Frauds, a contract 

 to sell lumlier must afford means of definitely ascertaining the quan- 

 tity to bo delivered and the price to be paiil. 



Api>lyinp the requirementB of the Virginia Statute of Frauds that 

 the writing must he signed, the Unife<l States circuit court of appeals 

 has declared that a purported contract to which was subscribed flic 

 selling company 's name in typewriting, with an unfilled blank under 

 it for the signature of the officer of the company who was to sign 

 the agreement, was insufficiently signed, although the company re- 

 tained the paper after its delivery by the buyer, and although partial 

 deliveries were made according to the terms of the writing. The 

 court decided, however, that the typewritten signature would have 

 been sufficient had the selling company authorized the appending of 

 it to the writing, or adopted it as a signature. 



Payment of part of the price, or an amount to bind the bargain, 

 avoids necessity for evidencing the contract by any writing, although 

 good business practice would seem to require the terms of every 

 important agreement to be reduced to "black and white." 



To satisfy the clause of the law which avoids the necessity of a. 

 writing where the buyer accepts part of the lumber contracted for, 

 the lumber must pass completely under his control. But it is not 

 essenti.al that, at the time of such acceptance, the lumber be measured 

 to determine the amount due on its price. 



And, according to a decision of the New York court of appeals, a 

 partial delivery of lumber, made after a contract is entered into, 

 renders the agreement of sale valid, altliough the contract is verbal. 

 In the case in which this decision was announced it appeared that, 

 after the terms of sale were orally agreed upon, the seller requested 

 the buyer to confirm the agreement in writing, which the buyer did, 

 stating the price and other terms. Part of the subject of sale was 

 then delivered and paid for. The court of appeals rested its opinion 

 as to the validity of the contract on the fact that a partial delivery 

 was accepted by the buyer in recognition of the agreement. 



In addition to contr.acts for the sale of commodities, the Statute of 

 Frauds usually provides that no promise to discharge the obligation 

 of a third person, and no contract which is not to be performed 

 within a year from its making, and no agreement to grant an interest 

 in land, excepting leases for not more than a year, shall be valid 

 unless it is evidenced in writing and signed by the person to be bound 

 thereby. Accordingly, the Missouri supreme court decided some 

 time ago that a contract for services in working up a market for a 

 company's products was invalid where it was not reduced to writing 

 and was not to expire within a year. 



When Title to Doors Did Not Pass 



Woods, a wholesale lumber dealer, bought 750 doors and agreed to 



sell 205 of them to plaintiff. On arrival of the doors in Kansas City, 



they were placed in a warehouse under the control of plaintiff, but 



without a separation of those -which were to be delivered to plaintiff 



—24— 



Wiiuil^. II wan un.liTst I that Woodii wan 



to plniiitilT, but hi' pai'l ii portion of inmir- 

 nnce covering all the doum, basivl u|kiii plaliililT'n ownen<hi|i of 205 

 of them. Later Wooils gave a luinlier coMipnii> an order for Uie iloors 

 remaining in the warehouBe, in payment of a ilobt. The ciistoilinn 

 delivered 158 doors which plaintiff claims Ix-longed to him under his 

 purchase from Woods, and plaintiff brought suit to recover their 

 value from the lumber company. In deciding the care against plnin- 

 li(T, till' Kansas City court of np|>ealR said: 



The rnllurc of pliilnllff In Inm- llii- ili>or« lie inii'.-hiiinil i><<|inrnt<-<l fn.iii 

 the BcinTnl iiiai". or Klvcn illKllncllvc iiiiirltii >'\ ivlilcli Ihcy could l>o 

 lili'ntKli'il 111 Mil propi-riy, lift tlio tllln to nil lli.' .|c...r» \ciil>J In \Voo4s, 

 unit il<'r<'iiilniit, no ii piinlimor In k'"><I fnllli from VVuods, acquired Ibo 

 full Icgnl title nnd rlRht to po»«,'im|nn from hini. 



Custom as Part of Shipping Contract 



When a railway coinjiany which has contnictcil to carry logs or 

 hiinl>er from one point to anoUior within the same state has no facil- 

 ities at the destination for unloading carload shipments and has cus- 

 tomarily delivered them at the consignee's mill, by switching the cars 

 over the tracks of a connecting railway company, the shipper under 

 such contract has the right to rely upon such custom, although it bo 

 not expressed in the shipping agreement. (Michigan supreme court, 

 Gates vs. Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company, 122 Northwestern 

 Reporter 1078.) 



Employer's Liability for Employe's Negligence 



.V lumber cuiiipany is lialilc lor injury tn ;i wcMi.lsman employe, 

 resulting from negligent failure of sawyers to give warning of the 

 fall of a. tree. (Arkausas supreme court, Clia|iman & Dewey Land 

 Comjiany vs. Woodruff, 17."! Southwestern Rp[iorter 188.) 

 Rights in Cutting Timber 



The right to enter land for the purpose of removing timber pur- 

 chased implies a right to do all acts which are reasonably necessary 

 to make the removal, such as cutting small timlior growth in order to 

 reach the timber sold. (Vermont supreme court, Cilley vs. Bacon, 

 93 Atlantic Reporter 261.) 



Injury in Unloading Logs 



An employe cannot recover ag:iiiist a luiiil>cr company for injury 

 sustained by him through a log falling from a car which was being 

 unloaded unless he affirmatively establishes negligence for which the 

 company is legally responsible ; the mere happening of the accident 

 creates no presumption of negligence. (St. I^ouis court of appeals, 

 Pruett vs. Campbell Lumber Co., 174 Southwestern Reporter 164.) 

 Damages for Breach of Contract 



Damages recoverable for breaeli liy an owiicr of land of a contract 

 to sell standing timber are to be measured by ascertaining the excess 

 of the reasonable value of the tinil>er above the price at which he 

 agreed to sell, and not with reference to some special price at which 

 the buyer agreed to resell the timber to a third person. (St. Louis 

 court of appeals. Moss vs. Hunter, 174 Southwestern Reporter 212.) 

 Duty to Afford Employes Safe Place of Work 



A lumber coinp.iiiy, not being an insurer of the safety of the 

 yilaces its em]doyes are reijuireil to work, is not liable for injury to 

 a workman who stepped on a nail protruding from a plank which 

 harl been washed into a timber yard in time of high water, unless the 

 company was negligent in failing to rliscover ;ind remove the danger. 

 Contract Invalid for Indefiniteness of Price 



If a contract of sale does not definitely fix the price to be paid, it 

 is unenforceable. Accordingly, the Kentucky court of appeals lately 

 held that a contract to sell goods at cost, plus expense of handling 

 and a ' ' nice " or " reasonable ' ' profit to the seller could not bo 

 enforced. (Gaines & Sea vs. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 174 

 Southwestern Reporter 483.) 



Method of Shipment Under Contract of Sale 



When it is agreed that goods shall be sold lor delivery to the 

 buyer f. o. b. place of shipment, he is entitled to reject a shipment 

 made to the seller's order with draft attached to bill of lading. 

 (Texas court of civil appeals, Watson vs. Patrick, 174 Southwestern 

 Reporter 632.) 



