THE NOTE OR MEMORANDUM IN WRITING. 23 



It is also necessary that the Letter of acceptance he 

 ahsolute and unqualified {e). 



Where a contract is to be made out by an offer on one 

 side and an acceptance on the other, if the answer is 

 equivocal or anything is left to be done, the two do not 

 constitute a binding contract (d). 



The better opinion is that a contract is complete upon Where the 

 the posting by one party of a Letter addressed to the contract is 

 other, accepting the terms offered by the latter, notwith- ^^^^ 

 standing such Letter never reaches its destination (e). 



The terms of a written contract for the sale of goods. Terms can- 

 falling within the operation of the Statute of Frauds, ^^ot bo varied 

 cannot be varied or altered by parol ; and where a con- ^ ^^^^ ' 

 tract for the bargain and sale of goods was made, stating 

 a time for the delivery of them, it was held by the Court 

 of Exchequer that an agreement to substitute another 

 day for that purpose must, in order to be valid, be in 

 writing ; and Mr. Baron Alderson said, — " By the 4th 

 section of the Statute of Frauds, it is provided that the 

 contracts therein mentioned shall be in writing, otherwise 

 no action shall be maintained upon them. The 17th sec- 

 tion requires that some Note or Memorandum in writing 

 of the bargain before made shall be signed by the party 

 to be charged by such contract, or his agent lawfully 

 authorized. There is undoubtedly a distinction between 

 the two enactments, for by the 4th section the whole con- 

 tract must be in writing, including the consideration 

 which induced the party to make the stipulation by 

 which he is to be bound; but by the 17th section it is 

 sufficient if all the terms by which defendant is to bo 

 bound are stated in writing so as to bind him. Now hero 

 there is a stipulation which is to bind the defendant, and 

 it is proposed to alter that by parol, which cannot bo 

 done. It is much better plainly to define what the law 

 is than to attempt to create fanciful distinctions " (/). So, 



(e) Applehy v. Johnson, L. R., 9 Co. v. Grant, L. R., 4 Ex. D. 216 ; 



C. P. 158. 48 L. J., Ex. 577; 41 L. T., N. S. 



{d) Per Grove, J., ibid. 163; and 298; 27 W. R. 858—0. A., oxev- 



sce Slanh'!/ V. DoKclestfeU,Jj. H., 10 ruling British and American Tele- 



C. P. 102 ; 23 W. R. 389. r/rryj/t Co. v. Colson, L. R., 6 Ex. 



(c) Duncan v. Topham, 8 C. B. 108 : 40 L. J., Ex. 97; 23 L. T., 



225 ; Bunlop v. JUffffins, 1 H. L. C. N. S. 868, where it was held that 



381; and see Imjicrial Land Co. of the contract was not complete until 



Marseilles, In re, Harris's case, L. the actual receipt of the letter. 



R., 7 Ch. 587; 41 L. J., Ch. 621 ; (/) MarshaUx. Lynn, 6 M. & W. 



26 L. T., N. S. 781; 20 W. R. 118; and see iVoi^e v. JFard,L.Ii., 



290; and household Fire Insurance 1 Ex.117; Ex. Ch., L. R., 2 Ex.135. 



