Maclean v Dunn and Watkins, who survived Austin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1828 |
| Date | 19 May 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 947
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 761; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 184. Referred to, Lamond v. Davall, 1847, 9 Q. B. 1032.
[722] maclean v. dunn and watkins, who survived Austin. May 19, 1828. [S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 761; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 184. Referred to, Lamond v. Davall, 1847, 9 Q. B. 1032.] 1, If A., without authority, makes a contract in writing for the purchase of goods by B., and B, subsequently ratifies the contract, such ratification renders A. an agent sufficiently authorised to make the contract under the statute of frauds.-2. Where the purchaser of goods refuses to take them, the vendor, by reselling them, does not preclude himself from recovering damages for the breach of contract. This waa a special action of assumpsit for not accepting and paying for a quantity of Russian and German wool. At the trial before Best C. J., London sittings after Michaelmas term 1826, the facts of the case as far as they are material to the questions heee noticed, were as follows:- The Defendants were carrying on business in London as druggists and dry-salters, when Ebaworth, a London wool-broker, met Watkina at Manchester, near which place Watkins lived, and on the part of the Plaintiff agreed to sell the Defendants 165 bags of Russian and German wool, to be paid for partly by 145 bags of Spanish wool, which, on the part bf the Defendants, he agreed to sell to the Plaintiff, and partly by acoept-ances or cash, on certain terms specified in the following bought and sold note, which he delivered to the Plaintiff's clerk. "D. Maclean, Esq. " Manchester, 28th March 1825. " Sir,-We have sold for your account, to Messrs. Dunn, Austin, Watkins, and Co. 166 bags of Russian and German wool, viz. [here followed a specification of the wools as in the note made out for the Defendants, amounting to 165 bags only, the insertion of 166 having been admitted on the trial to have arisen by mistake in the casting], after deducting the amount of 145 baga of Spanish wool sold you, the balance to be paid for by an acceptance at four months, with 2| per cent, discount, or in cash with 5 per cent, discount, at your option.-Commission for selling, 1 per cent. "EBSWORTH AND BADHAM." 948 MACLEAN V.DUNN 4 BING. 723, [723] "Manchester, 28th March 1825. " D. Maclean, Esq. "Sir,-We have bought for your account, of Messrs. Dunn, Austin, Watkins, and Co., 145 baga of Spanish wool, viz. [here followed a specification of 145 bags of wool], the amount of 145 baga to be deducted from the 165 bags of Russian and German wool bought of you this day, and the balance to be paid for by an acceptance at four months at 2| per cent, discount, or in cash, with 5 per cent, discount, on the 1st July, at your option.-Commission for purchasing, | per cent. "ebsworth and badham." This bought and sold note was written on one sheet of paper. Corresponding bought and sold notes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyas v Stafford
...Ch. D. 49. Bayley v. Fitzmaurice 8 Ell. & Bl. 664. Bird v. BoulterENR 4 B. & Ad. 443. Gosbell v. Archer 2 A. & El. 500. Maclean v. DunnENR 4 Bing. 722. Long v. MillarELR 4 C. P. D. 450. St. Margaret's Burial Board v. ThompsonELR L. R. 6 C. P. 445. Swaisland v. DearsleyENR 29 Beav. 430. Gosb......
-
King of the Two Sicilies v Willcox and Others
...Wiles, 400. (c) 9 Ves. 347. (d) 1 Knapp, 329 n. (e) 11 Ves. 283. (f) 3 T. R. 726. (g) 4 Russ. 225. (h) 2 Sim. 194. (i) Turn. & R. 297. (j) 4 Bing. 722. (k) 12 M. & W. 226 ; L.J. (Ex.) 88. (1) 1 Veg., J. 371. The bill further alleges that a scheme has been entered into by the defendants with......
-
Lawson v Hosemaster Company Ltd
...that on ratification the title of the ostensible principal dates back to the date of the contract adopted: Maclean v. Dunn & Watkins (1825) 4 Bingham 722; Bolton Partners v. Lambert (1889) 41 Chancery Division 295 (in the Court of Appeal); Spence v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1941) 24 Ta......
-
Martindale against Smith
...is immediately entitled to the possession, and the right of possession and the right of property vest at once in him." In Maclean v. Dunn (4 Bing. 722), it was held that, where a vendee absolutely refused to take the goods, the vendor might resell and proceed for damages : but here has been......
-
The Assessment of Gain‐Based Damages for Breach of Contract
...requiring the defendant to disgorge thepro¢t he made by virtue of his breach.88 n 2 above at [26] (Mance LJ).89 Maclea n vDunn (1828) 4 Bing 722; ex p Stapleton (1879)10 Ch D 586. The scope of the operation ofthis presumption has been strictly limited: McGregor, n 71 above, para 20^111; Jam......