EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 505 



of goods for £10 or more, there, mud be either a writing or a part 'payment, 

 or a delivery and acceptance of the goods so sold. A contract for the sale 

 of goods at that price is within the 17th section, notwithstanding it 

 includes other matter to which that section does not apply {Harman v. 

 Reeve) ; and the bare acceptance by the vendee as owner is sufficient to 

 satisfy that section, although the vendee immediately after accepting 

 them states that he does so on terms diflerent from those on which the 

 vendor delivered them {Tomkinson \. Staigld). Andj^er Curiam: "In 

 an action for the price, the fact of the contract of sale having been 

 established by the acceptance, parol evidence of its terms is admis- 

 sible" {ib.). And so, where by an agreement in writing signed by the 

 party to be charged, something not expressed on the face of it is agreed 

 to be done, and what is to be done is included in another writing, parol 

 evidence may be admitted to show what the other witing is, so that the 

 two documents together may constitute a binding agreement within the 

 statute {Ridgway v. Wharton). 



The Statute of Frauds was extended by 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, which was 

 framed to meet the difficulty which arose in Rondeau v. Wyatt, and the 

 cases which were decided on its authority. Section 7 of the latter 

 statute enacted that "The provisions of the Statute of Frauds shall 

 extend to all contracts for the sale of goods to the value of £10 or 

 upwards, notwithstanding the goods may be Intended to be delivered 

 at some future time, or may not at the time of such contract be actually 

 made, procured, or provided, or fit or ready for delivery, or some act 

 may be requisite for the making or completing thereof, or rendering 

 the same fit for delivery." And /vr Curimn : " The effect of such a 

 section is to substitute for the words 'for the price of £10 ' in the 17th 

 section of the Statute of Frauds, the words 'of the value of £10'" 

 (Harman v. Reeve). The effect of the netv statute was thus I'emarked 

 on by Martin B. in Gurr v. Scudds : " Reference has been made to 

 various decisions under the Statute of Frauds, and certainly great 

 efforts were formerly made to take cases out of the 17th section of 

 that Act. These cases remained the law, until it was amended by the 

 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 7. According to the present law, however, if the 

 result of the agreement be that the seller transfers the article c(s goods 

 to the buyer, it is utterly immaterial whether the goods were existing 

 at the time of the agreement or not, and the case falls within the 

 exemption in the Stamp Act." 



When a note or memorandum in writing is sufficient to satisfy the 

 Statute of Frauds was much considered in Richards v. Porter. The 

 plaintiffs sent to the defendant (January 25th) an invoice (in which the 

 parties were duly described as seller and purchaser) of five pockets of 



