PLEADING AND EVIDENCE FOE THE PLAINTIFF. 17-5 



the defendant may be prepared to dispute the facts. But 

 damages which necessarily, and by implication of law, ensue 

 from the non-performance of the contract, need not be 

 expressly detailed, and are recoverable under the common 

 conclusion of the statement of claim (e). 



Where the plaintiff brings an action for the price of his Proof in goods 

 horse as goods bargained and sold, he must be prepared to ^Y?"'" ^"'^ 

 prove such a contract of a sale(/), made by him to the 

 defendant and completed, as was sufficient in law to vest 

 the property in the defendant. For instance, where the 

 price is 10/. or upwards, the plaintiff' must prove that some 

 requisite of the 4th section of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, 

 as to which see ante, p. 5, has been complied with (</). 

 And it will be necessary to show that a specific price was 

 agreed upon {h) as part of the contract. 



Where the plaintiff brings an action for not accepting Proof in an 

 the horse he has sold to the defendant, and a plea travers- action foj not 

 ing the contract or agreement in the statement of claim "' 



is pleaded, the plaintifli' must prove the contract, that is, 

 the alleged consideration and the promise (i). And if the 

 defendant contest it in his pleading, the plaintiff must show 

 either a tender (k), as the case may be, or that during a 

 reasonable time he was i-eadi/ and witling to deliver it (I). 



The meaning of readiness and willingness is, that the non- Meaning of 

 completion of the contract was not the fault of the plaintiff, rendiness and 

 and that he was disposed and able to complete it, if it had ^'i^™g°"^^'^- 

 not been renounced by the defendant (m). 



Where the plaintiff has otherwise than at the buyer's 

 request delayed delivery beyond the proper time, he cannot 

 enforce acceptance, unless the defendant has entered into 

 a new binding contract («). 



Where a horse is bought, and an action is brought for Proof in mi 

 not delivering him, a plea traversing the contract or agree- ^ction for not 

 nient alleged in the statement of claim will put the plaintiff' °' 



to prove the contract, namely, the alleged consideration and 

 promise; and if the defendant contest it in his pleading, 



(e) See Boorman-v. Nash, 9 B. & (i) Seal v. White, 12 A. & E. 



C. 152; and Chit. Contr., 12th ed. 670. 



8.54 ; BuUen and Leake's Pleading, (k) Proof of Tender, post. 



4th ed. 19; and Damages, post. (/) Granger ^i. Dacre, 12 M. &W. 



(/) Requires no stamp. Marson 431; Te7npest^.Kilner,2G.'B.mi,. 



V. Short, 2 Bing. JST. C. 118; 8. C, (m) Cort y. Ambergate Mailn-ay 



2 Scott, 243. Compamj, 20 L. J., Q. B. 465; Baker 



(ff) Mliott T. Fybus, 10 Bing. 512; v. Firminger, 28 L. J., Ex. 130. 



Rohde V. Thwaites, 6 B. & C. 388. («) Flevins v. Downing, 1 C. P. D. 



Ih) Simmons v. Swift, 5 B. & C. 220 ; 45 L. J., C. P. 695 ; 35 L. T., 



857. N. S. 263. 



