98 Timehri. 
principles as those of the Napoleonic code and I have little doubt that Roman- 
Dutch Law has done more towards the building up of that code than ever 
English law did. 
T do not think I shall be wrong in stating that the local controversy was 
brought to a head by the decision in the case of Synada Bee v. Craigen in the 
Limited Jurisdiction at the end of 1910. The facts of the case are doubtless 
well-known and it is not necessary to say more than that the defendant was 
sued for the price of goods sold to him. It was held by the Judge who originally 
heard the action that there was no evidence that any price was agreed on and 
that therefore there could be no contract of sale. If, however, as was pointed 
out by the Full Court when the matter came before them on appeal, there was 
no evidence that would support a contract of sale, it cannot be presumed that 
therefore a donation has been made buc that compensation would necessarily 
follow. The law as to a contract of sale is fully set out, as regards this question, 
by the Full Court, in the case of Teixeita v. Gomes (July, 1903.) 
“ Under the Roman-Duich law a fixed price is an essential ingredient in a 
“ contract of sale, and although the price is deemed to be fixed when it is left 
“to the decision of a determinate third party, still the fixing of the price cannot 
“(save under circumstances not existing in this case) be left to the decision of 
“an individual not definitely determined (Voet. Ad. Pand. XVIII. i. 23), and 
“even when left to the decision of a definite individual, if he fails to fix the 
“price, the contract becomes void (ib.).”’ In the case of Craigen v. Synada Bee 
(March, 1911) the Full Couct stated: ““None, however, of the cases cited support 
“ the view that under Roman-Dutch law, where there has been no contract of 
“sale but goods have been supplied by one party to another at his request 
“under circumstances showing a donation was not intended, the ae recelv- 
“ing such goods is not liable to compensate the party receiving them.”........ 
“Tt is, we think, clear that in a case like the present where a shopkeeper 
““yvequesis a merchant or commission dealer to supply him with goods quae 
“usu consumuntur, the presumption necessarily arises that a donation is not 
“*ssked but it is intended compensation shall be made and if no price is fixed 
“then under the Roman-Dutch law, the person to whom they are 
“supplied is liable to pay ‘ fair and reasonable ° compensation. (Dig. L. 17, 74 
“and 155 ; Humphry v. Kaps, 28 Oct., 1905. Grotius III. i. 16 and 17.) ”’ 
Presumably on hearing the original decision in this case the ordinary layman 
thought that if he purchased goods at a store or shop and did not “fix” a 
price at the time he might thereby avoid payment. It is frequently impossible 
when translating from one language to another, to exactly convey in one word . 
in the second language what is meant by a word or series of words in the first 
language and it appears to be so in this case. As there are certain definite 
requirements to constitute the contract of sale, so there are certain requisites 
for the price which must be “ verum, justum et certum.” These words have 
probably been loosely translated into English as “fixed ’’ which does not by 
any means convey all that is contained in them. “ The price may be certain 
in itself, or by relation to something else as where it is made to depend 
