SALE OF TURNIP SEED. 537 



sorts you may have to offer, as also Wurzel seed of sorts for 1861 

 harvest. AVaiting your reply, we remain, &c." The plaintiff verb- 

 ally told the defendants he accepted the offer. The defendants having 

 refused to receive the seed, it was held by the Court of Exchequer, con- 

 firming Wightman J.'s ruling on the trial, that there was a binding 

 contract in writing within the l7th section of the Statute of Frauds, 

 although the plaintiff never replied in writing to the defendants' last 

 letter. The plaintiff' gave evidence to the effect that he did not reply 

 by letter to the defendants' letter of March 21st, but that being in 

 London on March 25th he called at the defendants' shop, and had 

 some conversation with Ainsworth one of the defendants on the 

 subject of other seeds, in the course of which he said : " I think 

 we have some transaction with you ?" and the plaintiff replied, 

 *' Yes, a contract for three acres of white globe." Ainsworth, on 

 the other hand, stated that he said to the plaintiff when he called, " I 

 believe we have been writing to you about some turnip seed ? " and the 

 plaintiff said, " Yes, but I cannot accept your offer ; " and that acting 

 upon that the defendants bought turnip seed elsewhere at a higher 

 price. It appeared that the market had fallen considerably between 

 March and August. Wighiman J. left it to the jury to say whether the 

 plaintiff at the interview rejected or accepted the terms of the letter of 

 March 21st, reserving leave to the defendants to move on the question 

 of whether there was any contract in writing to satisfy the 1 7th section 

 of the Statute of Frauds. The jury found that the contract was 

 accepted, and the verdict was entered for the plaintiff. And per 

 Wilde B. : "The single question is whether the letter of 21st of March 

 is a sufficient memorandum within the Statute of Frauds ? If it is a 

 contract to buy three acres of turnip seed at 185. per bushel, then the 

 point is not arguable. I think it is a contract. I will only say in 

 reference to the words ' waiting your reply,' that if they are to be 

 regarded as making only a proposal, then there is not a contract, but 

 I do not give that effect to the words. The letter makes enquiries 

 as to other sorts of turnip seeds, and also as to wurzel seed, and the 

 defendants wait for a reply as to that part of the letter" {Watts v. 

 Amsu'orth). 



No contract where sale conditional on ansicer hy return of j^ost which 

 teas not sent. — A letter making an offer for a horse, adding, " Send a 

 reply by return of post," was held by Bgles J. to be conditional, and 

 not to constitute a contract in the absence of a reply ; and the subject 

 of the letter having been sent to, but not actually received by the 

 defendant, it was also held there was no delivery to him. The offer 

 having received no answer, and being conditional on return of post, the 



