DOI Heft:
No. 133 (April, 1904)
DOI Artikel:[An important judgment]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19881#0241
An Important Judgment
for Romford, Essex—for ^50, the "amount ot the contract in question was a contract "for the sale
work done and material provided by the plaintiff for of goods," within the meaning of the Act; or a con-
the defendant, at her request, in painting a picture." tract " for work and labour, and materials " acces-
The defendant pleaded the 4th section of the Sale sorial to the same. It was admitted by the plaintiff
of Goods Act, 1893, which enacted that a "contract that the alleged contract was entered into verbally,
for the sale of any goods of the value of £\o or and was never subsequently reduced into writing,
upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless His Honour went on to refer at considerable
the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold and length to cases cited by counsel on both sides at
actually receive the same ; or unless some note or the trial; and then said he must hold that the
memorandum in writing of the contract be made contract in question was for "work and labour and
and signed by the party to be charged or his agent materials " found, being necessary accessories, and
in that behalf." The question to be decided on not for " goods sold," within the meaning of the
this plea—continued His Honour—was whether Sale of Goods Act. The contract might possibly
be considered as two-fold
and divisible, viz. :—First,
to give the necessary work
and labour ; and, secondly,
to supply the necessary
materials — which latter
could not exceed ^10 in
value—either for a reason-
able price or, perhaps,
gratis; neither of which
contracts would be within
the Sale of Goods Act;
and certainly it would
appear a great hardship
if, when an artist had
devoted weeks or months
and the highest skill to
work and labour which
was not within the Sale
of Goods Act, he was
to be excluded from
the fruits of the same
because it involved the
use of materials which
also were not within the
Act.
There remained another
question, said His Honour,
with reference to the 4th
Section, namely, whether
there had been an accep-
tance of the picture by
the defendant which would
take it altogether out of the
section. This, of course,
depended wholly on the
evidence, as did also the
preliminary and vital ques-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^■i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BBMMBB had
been in fact any verbal
portrait" by k. somofk 1
(See article on Modern Russian Art) contract between the
for Romford, Essex—for ^50, the "amount ot the contract in question was a contract "for the sale
work done and material provided by the plaintiff for of goods," within the meaning of the Act; or a con-
the defendant, at her request, in painting a picture." tract " for work and labour, and materials " acces-
The defendant pleaded the 4th section of the Sale sorial to the same. It was admitted by the plaintiff
of Goods Act, 1893, which enacted that a "contract that the alleged contract was entered into verbally,
for the sale of any goods of the value of £\o or and was never subsequently reduced into writing,
upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless His Honour went on to refer at considerable
the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold and length to cases cited by counsel on both sides at
actually receive the same ; or unless some note or the trial; and then said he must hold that the
memorandum in writing of the contract be made contract in question was for "work and labour and
and signed by the party to be charged or his agent materials " found, being necessary accessories, and
in that behalf." The question to be decided on not for " goods sold," within the meaning of the
this plea—continued His Honour—was whether Sale of Goods Act. The contract might possibly
be considered as two-fold
and divisible, viz. :—First,
to give the necessary work
and labour ; and, secondly,
to supply the necessary
materials — which latter
could not exceed ^10 in
value—either for a reason-
able price or, perhaps,
gratis; neither of which
contracts would be within
the Sale of Goods Act;
and certainly it would
appear a great hardship
if, when an artist had
devoted weeks or months
and the highest skill to
work and labour which
was not within the Sale
of Goods Act, he was
to be excluded from
the fruits of the same
because it involved the
use of materials which
also were not within the
Act.
There remained another
question, said His Honour,
with reference to the 4th
Section, namely, whether
there had been an accep-
tance of the picture by
the defendant which would
take it altogether out of the
section. This, of course,
depended wholly on the
evidence, as did also the
preliminary and vital ques-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^■i^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BBMMBB had
been in fact any verbal
portrait" by k. somofk 1
(See article on Modern Russian Art) contract between the