THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, VS 



tliG bargain." "Wlion tlio prico is not a material 

 part of the bargain, as Avhero a gentleman ordered 

 a landaulet, in general terms, the Court held the 

 ^vTiting contained a /I thftt nas agreed on (/■), and 

 found for the coachmaker. 



On this point, Mr. Benjamin in his work on 

 Sales says, " So far as price is concerned, the rule 

 of law is that where there is no actual agreement 

 as to price, the note of the bargain is sufficient, 

 even though silent as to the price, because the law 

 supplies the deficiency by importing into the bar- 

 gain a promise by the buyer to pay a reasonable 

 price. But the law only does this in the absence 

 of an agreement, and tliorcfore, where the price is 

 fixed by mutual consent, that price is part of the 

 bargain, and must be shown in order to satisfy the 

 statute; and finally, that parol evidence is admis- 

 sible to show that a price was actually agreed on 

 in order to establish the insufficiency of a memo- 

 randum which is silent as to price." 



A correspondence between the parties that does Sufficient 

 not contain all the terms of the contract will not bcmudo'by 

 be held a sufficient note of the bargain (s) ; but, ^'^"'^"■ 

 on the other hand, a sufficient note may be made 

 by letters or other writings, if taken together they 



(»•) Hoadly v. Madaluc, 10 Bingham, 4S2. 

 (4) Cooper V. Smith, \b East, 103; liichardsv. Potter, 6 B. i- C. 

 437; Smith v. Sunnan, 9 B. & C. 5G1 ; 1 M. & R. 4.35. 



