20 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



Matters ante- 

 cedent to the 

 writiiig. 



Condition 

 precedent. 



Memorandum 

 made after 

 action. 



"What is 

 necessary. 



As to initials. 



letter, whicli does not mention any time for payment, and 

 such letter amounts to a valid contract within the statute, 

 parol evidence is admissible to show that the goods were 

 supplied on credit («). 



But a matter antecedent to and dehors the writing may 

 in some cases be received in evidence, as showing the in- 

 ducement to the contract ; such as a representation of some 

 particular quality or incident of the thing sold. But the 

 buyer is not at liberty to show such a representation, unless 

 he can also show that the seller by some fraud prevented him 

 from discovering a fault which he, the seller, knew to 

 exist (o). 



Parol evidence is also admissible of a condition, on which 

 the written agreement depends, such evidence being as to 

 facts distinct from, but collateral to, the written agree- 

 ment (p). 



In order to sustain an action, there must be a good con- 

 tract in existence at the time of action brought. There- 

 fore, a memorandum in writing of a contract after action 

 brought does not satisfy the statute {q). 



The Signature by the Party to be CHiarged. 



Section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, requires that 

 there should be a note or memorandum of the contract in 

 writing, signed by the party to he charged ; and the cases 

 have decided that, although the signature be in the begin- 

 ning or middle of the instrument, it is as binding as if at 

 the foot of it, the question being always open to the jury, 

 whether the party not having signed it regularly at the 

 foot, meant to be bound by it as it then stood, or whether 

 he left it so unsigned, because he refused to complete it (r). 



The Christian name of the signature may be set out at 

 length or denoted by the initial, or left out altogether (s) ; 

 but it seems that the surname must be written at length, 

 and that the mere initials will not suffice {t). A mark by 

 a person unable to write may suffice if sufficiently iden- 

 tified ill). An unsigned postscript commencing, "I had 

 quite omitted to teU you and Martin," on a separate piece 



(«) Lockett V. Nicldin, 2 Ex. 93. 



\o) Kuin V. Old, 2 B. & C. 634. 



(p) Pym V. Campbell, 6 El. & Bl. 

 370 ; Lindley y. Zacey, 5 N. E. 51. 



(q) Mil i. Sament, 9 M. & W. 

 36. 



(r) Per Lord Abinger, C. B., 

 Johnson v. Dodgson, 2 M. & "W". 659. 



(s) Lohb V. Stanley, 5 Q. B. 574,. 

 581. 



(t) Sweet Y. Lee, 3 M. & G. 452, 

 460. 



(m) Baker v. Dening, 8 A. & E. 

 94 ; Hewlett v. Brumfit, L. E., a 

 C. P. 28; 37 L. J., C. P. 35; 17 

 L. T., N. S. 213. 



