22 CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



on tlie Monday, and the defendant's son took her away 

 without paying the price, and without any Receipt or 

 Warranty. The defendant kept her two days and then 

 returned her as being unsound. The learned Judge stated 

 to the Jury that the question was, whether the defendant 

 had accepted the Mare, and directed them to find for the 

 defendant if they thought he had returned her within a 

 reasonable time ; and desired them also to say whether 

 the son had authority to take her without the waiTanty. 

 The Jury found that the defendant did not accept the 

 Mare, and that the son had not authority to take her away. 

 It was held by the Court of Exchequer, on motion to enter 

 a verdict for the plaintiff, that there was no complete con- 

 tract in writing between the parties ; that therefore the 

 direction of the learned Judge was right. Also that the 

 defendant was not bound by the act of the son in- bringing 

 home the Mare, inasmuch as he had thereby exceeded his 

 authority as agent, and consequently that the plaintiff was 

 not entitled to recover (::) . And where the plaintiff sent 

 his Horse to a livery stable for sale, and the defendants 

 bid 75/. for him, but no final agreement was come to, and 

 the plaintiff left the Horse at the livery stable to see if the 

 defendants would buy the animal, arranging with the 

 livery stable keeper that he was to have no commission on 

 the sale unless 75/. or more were paid ; and the Horse 

 proving slightly unsoimd, the defendants wrote to the 

 livery stable keeper offering 70/. for him, and the livery 

 stable keeper having transmitted their Letter to the plain- 

 tiff, he (the plaintiif ) wrote to the livery stable keeper as 

 follows : " As the Horse is with you he shall go at 70/. 

 clear to me. I will pay no expenses, you must get what 

 you can of Mr. B. (one of the defendants) ; I cannot 

 allow anything off the 70/." It was held, that as the 

 plaintiff, by his answer to the defendant's offer, stipulated 

 that they should bear expenses to which he as vendor was 

 prinul facie liable, he had added a new term to those pro- 

 posed, and, in the absence of an acceptance of that term, 

 there was no complete contract between the parties (a). 



On the other hand, however, two Letters may be suf- 

 ficiently identical to constitute a contract, although the 

 Letter of proposal may mention a term which is omitted 

 to be mentioned in the Letter of acceptance {b). 



(;) Jordan v. Korton, 4 M. & W. N. S. 178. 

 155; mi/ward V. Barnes, 2ZL.T.GS. {b) Metzler v. Gounod, 32 L. T., 



(«) Lewis V. Fedrick, 29 L. T., N. S. 656, 



