Marshall v Lynn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Date | 01 January 1840 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 342
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 126. Referred to, Mortindale v. Smith, 1841, 1 Q. B. 389; 1 G. & D. 1; Tyers v. Rosedale and Ferryhill Iron Company, 1873, L. R. 8 Ex. 316: reversed, L. R. 10 Ex. 195; Sanderson v. Graves, 1875, L. R. 10 Ex. 237. Discussed, Noble v. Ward, 1860, L. R. 1 Ex. 121; 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 138; Hickman v. Haynes, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 604. Distinguished, Ogle v. Earl Vane, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 281; 7 B. & S. 855: affirmed, L. R. 3 Q. B. 272; 9 B. & S. 182.
marshall v. lynn. Exch. of Pleas. 1840.-The terms of a written contract for the sale of goods, falling within the operation of the Statute of Frauds, cannot be varied or altered by parol; and where a contract for the bargain and sale of goods is made, stating a time for the delivery of them, an agreement to substitute another day for that purpose must, in order to be valid, be in writing. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ex. 126. Referred to, Mortindah v. Smith, 1841, 1 Q. B. 389; 1 G. & D. I ; Tyersv. Rotedule ami FerryhUl Iron Company, 1813, L. R. 8 Ex. 316: reversed, L. R. 10 Ex. 195 ; Sandenm v. 'Graves, 1 875, L It. 10 Ex. 237. Discussed, Noble v. Ward, 1860, L. R. 1 Ex. 121 ; 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 138; Hirkman v. Haynex, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 604. Distinguished, Ogle v. Earl Vaw., 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 281; 7 B. & S. 855 : affirmed, L. R. 3 Q. B. 272; i) B. & S. 182.] Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration alleged, that the defendant theretofore, to wit, on the 15th of December, 1838, bargained for and bought of the plaintiff, and the plaintitf at the request of the defendant then sold to the defendant, a large quantity, to wit, as many pota-[110]-toes as would load a certain brig or vessel of the plaintiff called the " Kitty," that is to say, from sixty to seventy lasts, to be shipped on board the said vessel on her next arrival at the port of Wisbech, in the county of Cambridge, the said potatoes to consist of what pink kidneys the said plaintiff then had, ano] the residue to consist of round, white, and blue potatoes, and to be paid for at the rate or price of 4s, 6d. per sack for each and every sack of the said pink kidneys, 8M.4W.111. MARSHALL V. LYNN 343 and at the rate or price of 4s. 3d. per sack for each and every sack of the said round, white, and blue potatoes, of fifteen stones net merchants' ware, to be delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant free on board the said brig or vessel, and to be paid for by the said defendant on such delivery thereof as aforesaid. The declaration then, after alleging mutual promises for the performance of the terms of the contract, and averring the arrival of the " Kitty " at VVisbech on the 25th of December, 1838, the same being her next arrival after the making of the agreement, averred, that he the plaintiff has always on and after such arrival of the said brig or vessel as aforesaid, been ready and willing, and then tendered and offered to ship the said potatoes free on board the said brig' or vessel, and to deliver the said potatoes to the defendant according to the terms of the bargain and sale ; but that the defendant then wholly discharged the plaintiff from making such shipment and delivery, and then requested the plaintiff to delay such shipment and delivery until the said brig or vessel should have made h certain other voyage from the port of Wisbech, and should have again arrived at the said port of VVisbech ou her return from such last mentioned voyage, to which said last-mentioned proposal and request of the said defendant the plaintiff then consented and agreed ; and thereupon, in consideration of the last-mentioned premises, and that the plaintiff at the like request of the defendant had then promised the defendant to ship and deliver the said potatoes to the defendant, according [111] to the said last-mentioned proposal and request of the said defendant, the said defendant then promised the plaintiff to accept the said potatoes of and from the plaintiff, and to pay him for the samo, on tbe delivery thereof to the defendant as last aforesaid. And the plaintiff in fact says, that the said brig or vessel of the plaintiff' did afterwards, and after the making of the last-mentioned promise, to wit, on the 1st of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dowling and H G Hamilton Pty Ltd and Kelly v Rae
-
McCausland and Another v Duncan Lawrie Ltd and Another
...cases which I need not to refer to in detail.' After referring to the cases of Goss v. Lord Nugent, Stead v. Dawber, Giraud v. Richmond, Marshall v. Lynn, and Stowell v. Robinson, the learned judge continues: 'Those cases show that whenever the parties vary a material term of an existing co......
-
Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi
...Stowell v Robinson (1837) 3 Bing NC 928 [132 ER 668]; Stead v Dawber (1839) 10 Ad & E 57 [113 ER 22]; Marshall v Lynn (1840) 6 M & W 109 [151 ER 342]. 129 Lindgren, Time in the Performance of Contracts, 2nd ed (1982) at 11-12 [210]-[211] citing Lennon v Napper (1802) 2 Sch & Lef 682 at 683-......
-
Barrett v Independent Newspapers
...V CLAREMAN PRINTING & PUBLISHING CO 1903 2 IR 347 MCMAHON & BINCHY IRISH LAW OF TORTS P348 ODGERS LIBEL 5ED P119 PARMITER V COUPLAND 6 M&W 109, 151 ER 340 PYKE V HIBERNIAN BANK 1950 IR 195 QUIGLEY V CREATION LTD 1971 IR 269 R V SHIPLEY 4 DOUG 73 SAXBY V EASTERBROOK 3 CP 339 1 JUDGMENT del......