8 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Acceptance 

 before de- 

 livery. 



In the case of Saunders v. Topp {u), the learned Judges 

 doubted whether in any case there could be an acceptance 

 and receipt before actual delivery. But recent cases 

 show that in the case of specific goods the acceptance 

 may precede the actual delivery, and need not be con- 

 temporaneous or subsequent to it (x). For inasmuch as 

 the vendor may lose his lien on the goods without losing 

 the personal possession of them, so may a vendee have 

 accepted and have actually received them within the 

 meaning of the statute without having the personal pos- 

 session of them ; ('.//., in a case in which it is agreed 

 between the vendor and the vendee that the possession 

 shall thenceforth be kept, not as vendor, but as bailee 

 for the purchaser, the lien of the vendor is gone, and the 

 goods are no longer in his possession as unpaid vendor {>/). 

 When vendor The vcndor may at any time disaffirm a sale of goods 

 maydisaffinn q£ ^|^g value of 10/. or upwards, if only contracted to be 

 made by parol, before the vendee does anything to bind 

 the bargain; if, however, the buyer has "taken to" the 

 goods, before the contract is disaffirmed, it will, as it would 

 seem, bind the bargain in favour of the buyer as well as 

 the seller (~) . 



Where however an article is selected by the buyer, very 

 slight evidence of its acceptance, n-hen received, would be 

 sufficient to show an acceptance, coupled with a receipt. 

 As where the defendant verbally agreed to buy some sheep 

 which he had selected from the plaintiff's flock, and 

 directed them to be sent to his field, which was accordingly 

 done. Two days afterwards he sent his man to remove 

 them from the field to his farm, which was some miles 

 distant, and on their arrival he counted them over and 

 said, " It is all right." It was held that this was evidence 

 for the Jury of his acceptance of the sheep so as to satisfy 

 the Statute of Frauds, notwithstanding he afterwards re- 

 pudiated the purchase, and sent the sheep back to the 

 plaintiff (a). And Mr. Baron Alderson remarked on the 

 case as follows : " The previous selection of the sheep is 

 very material, to show the nature of the acceptance when 

 the sheep w^ere received. The defendant says, ' It is all 

 right.' If he had never seen the sheep, and there had 



Where an 

 article is 

 selected. 



(u) Sec note («), ante, p. 7. 



(z) Morton v. Ttbbcit, 15 Q. B. 

 428 ; UusacJcv. Robinson, 30 L. J., 

 Q. B. 261. 



(;/) Cnsach v. Eohiuson, 30 L. J., 

 Q.B. 261. 



(c) Tcnjlor v. WaJcrfield, 6 E. & 

 B. 765. 



(«) Saunders v. Topp, 4 Ex. 390. 



