28 



CONTRACTS CONCERNING HORSES, ETC. 



AVhen time of 

 deliTery is 

 not fixed to a 

 day. 



Goods to be 

 paid for be- 

 fore delivery. 



Renunciation 

 of contract. 



Price directed 

 to be sent by 

 post. 



Post-office 

 order. 



they should be, delivered at some time within the fourteen 

 days(«). 



When there are no special indications of the limit of 

 time in a contract, that it should be performed " directly " 

 means that it should be performed not " within a reason- 

 able time" but "speedily," or at least "as soon as prac- 

 ticable "(«/) ; and "as soon as possible" means "without 

 unreasonable delay," regard being had to the ability of 

 the person contracting, and the orders he has already in 

 hand (z). 



If there be an express contract between the parties that 

 the goods shall be paid for before delivery, an action may 

 be brought for the money before the goods are delivered. 

 Thus, if A. undertakes to pay 100/. on the 1st of January 

 for a horse purchased by him, and B. agrees to deliver it 

 on the 1st of April following, B. may in the meantime 

 maintain an action against A. for the money, without 

 delivering or offering to deliver the horse («). 



Where two parties enter into a contract which is to be 

 performed at a future day, and before the day of perform- 

 ance arrives one of them gives the other notice that he 

 does not hold himself bound by it, the other is at liberty 

 to treat such renunciation as a breach of the contract, 

 without waiting for the arrival of the day which is fixea 

 for its performance {b). 



If the buyer is directed to send the price by post, or if 

 it has been the usual practice between the parties to do 

 so (c), and the letter containing the money properly di- 

 rected (d) and posted (e) is lost, the debt is extinguished, 

 and the seller must bear the loss (/). 



Where the defendant, in answer to a letter demanding 

 payment, sent a post-office order, in which the plaintiff was 

 described by a wrong Christian name, and the plaintiff kept 

 it, but did not cash it, although he was informed at the post 

 ofBce he might receive the money at any time by signing it 



{^) Staunton v. IJ'oocl, 16 L. T., 

 Q. B. 486; Sale of Goods Act, 

 1893, s. 28. 



(i/) Diuicau V. Topham, 8 C. B. 

 225. 



(z) Attwood V. Emery, 26 L. J., 

 0. P. 73. 



(a) See Fettitt v. Mitchell, 5 Sco. 

 N. E. 740 ; Thorpe v. Thorpe, 1 

 Lord Eaym. 665; 1 Salk. 171; 

 Dunlop Y. Grote, 2 C. & K. 153 ; 



Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 49. 



(b) Danube, ^-c., Co. v. Xenos, 31 

 L. J., C. P. 284 (Ex. Ch.). 



(c) Warwicke T. Noahes, Peake, 

 N. P. 98; 3 R. R. 653. 



(d) Walter v. Saynes, E. & M. 

 149. 



(e) Sawldns v. Uutt, Peake, N. 

 P. 248. 



(/) Kington v. Kington, 11 M. & 

 W. 233. 



