Sale and Delivery of Corn. 
393 
on the next day, October 9, ordered the station master to forward 
all the barley to the order of the brewers at Sileby, and stated that 
the cost of the carriage was to be placed to his account. The station 
master accordingly sent off the barley to the brewers on October 10. 
On October 1 6, the barley having arrived at Sileby, the brewers, by 
telegram to the defendant, rejected it as not being up to sample. In 
reply to their telegram the defendant wrote acknowledging its re- 
ceipt and saying, “ I can only say we had a bulk sample from send- 
ing station before moving on, and consider it a fair delivery.” Cross- 
ing this letter came one from the brewers to the defendant in which 
they wrote, “ It seems strange that you did not take a bulk sample 
of the barley yourself before ordering it on to Sileby. We feel sure 
that if you had done so you would not have sent it, as it is quite 
unfit for brewing of ale.” The brewers having thus rejected the 
barley from the defendant, the defendant subsequently rejected it from 
the plaintiff (the farmer), and the latter brought his action against 
the defendant for the price of the barley. Mr. J ustice Lawrance 
gave judgment for the defendant, being of opinion that the defendant 
had never accepted the barley, and the plaintiff appealed from that 
judgment. 
The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Lord Justice 
A. L. Smith, who in the course of the judgment is reported to have 
said as follows : — 
“ It will be noticed that by the contract the plaintiff was to deliver 
the barley at Theddingworth Station. No other destination was 
known to him, and we cannot doubt that if this had been a sale of 
specific ascertained barley the property therein would have passed to 
the defendant upon its delivery to the railway company at the station by 
the plaintiff. The railway company would thereupon have become 
the agents of the defendant to receive it, and to carry it to any place 
or places the defendant might direct. But it was said by counsel 
for the defendant that, inasmuch as this was a sale by sample, the 
defendant was entitled to a fair opportunity of comparing the bulk 
with the sale sample after delivery before the property in the barley 
passed to him, and that the place for inspection need not necessarily 
be the place at which delivery is to be made, and in this we agree. 
The question, however, is if there can be read into this contract an 
implied term that the inspection was to be had at any place fixed by 
the vendee without the knowledge of the vendor. This is not a case 
in which, before a sale by sample, it is agreed that the destination of 
the goods shall be the vendee’s premises or some other named locality, 
and that the transit thereto shall be performed partly by the 
vendor and partly by the vendee. In such a case it would be right 
to imply that the place of destination agreed upon was the place for 
inspection, and that the joint transit was only an agreed mode of 
getting the goods there. This is a case in which at the time of sale 
the only known destination was Theddingworth Station, at which 
the vendor undertook to deliver the barley at his own risk and ex- 
pense. Of all that should take place afterwards as regards the 
barley the vendor knew nothing. It was entirely at the disposal of 
VOL. IV. T. S. — 14 D D 
