Selections from Leake's Elements of the Law of Contracts and Finch's Cases on Contracts (Volume 1) - Tapa blanda
Sinopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 edition. Excerpt: ...decision. Then, with respect to the construction of the fourth section, it is best not to make fanciful distinctions, but to look at the words of the statute: " No action shall be brought, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." This is signed by the party tobe charged; the consideration is duly stated, and the name of the auctioneer and of the vendor appears in the conditions. In Lees v. Whitcomb the only question was, whether the contract was truly set out in the declaration. VAUGHAN, J. All the essential requisites of sect. 4,both according to the letter and spirit of the act, have been complied with. The argument has proceeded on a fallacy arising out of a misconception of the case of Wain v. Warlters. That decision never turned on the ground that the mutuality of a contract must appear, but only that the note or a memorandum must show the consideration as well as the promise, otherwise all the inconveniences would prevail which the statute was meant to obviate. The present objection has not been taken before, and is not sanctioned by any of the great authorities. In Seton v. Slade (a) a signature by one party was held sufiicient; and Fowle v. Freeman (b) is a decision to the same effect. In Bowen v. llforris (0) Sir J. Mansfield said, " In equity, a contract signed by one party would be enforced, and it was not clear that it was different in law." The courts of equity, with the exception of the dicta of Lord Redesdale and Sir T. Plummer, present one uniform stream of authority. There is nothing contrary at law; and looking at...
"Sinopsis" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Reseña del editor
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1891 edition. Excerpt: ...decision. Then, with respect to the construction of the fourth section, it is best not to make fanciful distinctions, but to look at the words of the statute: " No action shall be brought, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." This is signed by the party tobe charged; the consideration is duly stated, and the name of the auctioneer and of the vendor appears in the conditions. In Lees v. Whitcomb the only question was, whether the contract was truly set out in the declaration. VAUGHAN, J. All the essential requisites of sect. 4,both according to the letter and spirit of the act, have been complied with. The argument has proceeded on a fallacy arising out of a misconception of the case of Wain v. Warlters. That decision never turned on the ground that the mutuality of a contract must appear, but only that the note or a memorandum must show the consideration as well as the promise, otherwise all the inconveniences would prevail which the statute was meant to obviate. The present objection has not been taken before, and is not sanctioned by any of the great authorities. In Seton v. Slade (a) a signature by one party was held sufiicient; and Fowle v. Freeman (b) is a decision to the same effect. In Bowen v. llforris (0) Sir J. Mansfield said, " In equity, a contract signed by one party would be enforced, and it was not clear that it was different in law." The courts of equity, with the exception of the dicta of Lord Redesdale and Sir T. Plummer, present one uniform stream of authority. There is nothing contrary at law; and looking at...
"Sobre este título" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
