24 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



But may bo 

 explained. 



Matters ante- 

 cedent to the 

 writins:. 



Condition 

 precedent. 



also, where the day appointed for the delivery of goods 

 was subsequently discovered to be a Sunday, and it was 

 then by word of mouth agreed between the parties that 

 the delivery should be made on the " Monday or Tuesday" 

 follo"^ang : it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, 

 that the enlargement of time having materially varied 

 the contract, and in fact substituted a new one, an action 

 for nondelivery could not be maintained {g). But for- 

 bearance on the part of the plaintiff is not a variation of 

 the contract {Ji) . 



But though the terms of a written contract cannot 

 be contradicted, altered or varied by parol evidence, yet 

 such evidence is admissible to define what the written 

 contract has left undefined (/) ; c. (/., where it contains no 

 date (/.•), or where its terms can only be given precision 

 when explained by the sense which mercantile usage has 

 put upon them (/), or where the subject-matter of the 

 contract can only be ascertained by the admission of a 

 conversation with reference to it (iii). So, too, where 

 goods are ordered by Letter, which does not mention any 

 time for payment, and such Letter amounts to a valid 

 contract within the Statute of Frauds, parol evidence is 

 admissible to showthat the goods were supplied on credit {n). 



But a matter antecedent to and dehors the writing may 

 in some cases be received in evidence, as showing the in- 

 ducement to the contract ; such as a representation of some 

 particular quality or incident of the thing sold. But the 

 buyer is not at liberty to show such a representation, 

 unless he can also show that the seller by some fraud pre- 

 vented him from discovering a fault which he, the seller, 

 knew to exist (o). 



Parol evidence is also admissible of a condition, on 

 which the written agreement depends, such evidence being 

 as to facts distinct from, but collateral to, the written 

 agreement (|;). 



{(/) Stead V. Baivher, 10 A. & E. 

 57 ; and see Hiclcman v. Harpies, 

 L. R., 10 C. P. 598; 44 L. J., C. P. 

 358 ; 32 L. T., N. S. 873 ; 23 "W. E. 

 871. 



(A) Ogle V. Tane {Earl), L. R., 3 

 Q. B. 272, Ex. Ch. ; 37 L. J., Q. 

 B. 771. 



(i) Per Erie, C. J., Lucas v. Bris- 

 tow, El. Bl. & El. 913. 



(k) Davis v. Jones, 25 L. J., C. P. 

 91, 



(/) Lucas V. Bristow, El. Bl. & 

 El. 907 ; Dale v. Humfrey, El. Bl. 

 & El. 1004. 



[in) Maedonald v. Lougbottom, 6 

 Jul-., N. S. 724 ; Chadu-iek v. Burn- 

 leg, 12 W. R. 1077. See also Bux- 

 ton V. Bust, L. R., 7 Ex. 280, 281— 

 Ex. Ch. per WHles, J. 



(«) Lockett V. Nicklin, 2 Ex. 93. 



(o) Kain V. Old, 2 B. & C. 634. 



(2)) Pym V. Campbell, 6 El. & Bl. 

 370 ; Lindley v. Lacey, 5 N. R. 51, 



