534 ACCErTAXCE OF HOPS. 



machine ; but what was attempted to be recovered there, and what tlie 

 Court heki was not reasonable, was in my opinion not at all necessarily 

 consequential damage from the non-delivery of the thrashing-machine. 

 Here the bops were delivered in a damaged condition, and I agree in 

 the statement that there is no difference between their being delivered 

 in a damaged condition for the purpose of this enquiry, and their having 

 been kept in the defendants' own premises, as from the facts found 

 by the jury, for all purposes, it is precisely the same us if they had 

 been in the defendants' possession, and not in the plaintiff's. At the 

 time they became available to the plaintiff as goods for sale, the market 

 had fallen from the defendants not performing their contract ; if there 

 is, therefore, any case where that can be treated as damage, this is a 

 case of that description. This seems to me to be the test by which 

 you must endeavour to ascertain the damages ; if you cannot resort 

 to this test, I own I do not know to what test you can resort. I am 

 therefore of opinion that the rule in this case should be discharged" 

 (Collard v. South Eastern Railway Comjiayuj). 



The measure of damages for non-delivery of goods by a carrier, as 

 laid down in Hadley v. Baxendale, was approved of by the Court in 

 Gee V. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Comimny (30 L. J. (N. S.) 

 Ex. 11). 



Acceptance of hops. — Plaintiff, a hop grower, sent samples of hops to 

 his factor ; and defendants, hop merchants, agreed with plaintiff at the 

 factor's premises to purchase some. The facte r made out a bought note, 

 and delivered it to defendants together with the sample. At defendants' 

 request the date of the note was altered to give them longer time for 

 payment. In an action for not accepting the hops, this was held not a 

 sufficient note or memorandum to bind defendants to the bargain within 

 sec. 17 of the Statute of Frauds. The declaration was in assumpsit for 

 refusing to receive hops. The plaintiff" accompanied the defendants to 

 the factors, and after bargaining for the sale of the hops at £16 16s. 

 per cwt, the sold note was then given to the plaintiff^, and the bought 

 note was, with the sample, delivered to the defendants. In the sold 

 note, the date was October 19th, but 19th was crossed out and 20th 

 substituted at defendants' request, the custom in the hop trade being 

 to pay on the Saturday week after the purchase, so that if the sale had 

 been completed, the payment would have taken place on November 3rd, 

 the defendants obtaining thereby a week longer for payment. On 

 October 23rd, the hops were sent to the factor according to usage, to 

 be weighed. The plaintiff was present, as was also one of the defen- 

 dants during some portion of the weighing. One of Messrs. Noakes's 

 warehousemen weighed for the plaintiff", and one of the defendants' men 



