Informal agreements give rise to questions of greater difficulty.

We may lay down as general, although not universal, rules, 1st, that any writing signed by the party to be charged, or his agent, and which, either expressly or by reference to other writings, determines the parties to and subject-matter of a. contract, and fixes, or provides the compulsory means of fixing, all its terms, is a sufficient agreement within the Statute; and, 2ndly, that no writing is a sufficient agreement, which fails in any of the above-mentioned particulars.

Thus, letters are constantly held to constitute a binding contract; and often where such a result is a surprise upon the writers (i): and a letter addressed by cither a vendor, or, it would appear, a purchaser, to a third person, with directions incidental to the carrying out of the agreement: - e.g., the delivery of title deeds, or preparation of the conveyance - may suffice to bind the writer (k): so, the Vendor's receipt for the purchase-money or deposit, or a similar receipt signed by the auctioneer, or the entry of sale made by him in his books, (l), or a bond of reference to a surveyor to settle the price to be paid by the purchaser, would, it appears, be sufficient (m). So, notice given by a Railway or other Public Company of their intention to exercise a power of Compulsorily taking land, if given to a person Under no personal incapacity (n), constitutes a binding contract to the extent of fixing what land is to be taken (o), and cannot be withdrawn by the Company without the consent of the landowner (p); and the price, if not settled by agreement, must be determined in the manner pointed out by the Act of Parliament (q); but notice by a Company, under the Chapter VI (As To The Agreement).

Matters to be provided for, in agreement for sale to pub -lic companies, etc.

Informal agreements.

What may be a sufficient agreement within the statute.

Letters.

(g) See Frend and Ware's Railway Conveyancing, p. 146.

(h) See 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, sect. 77; and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 17, s. 18.

Receipt for purchase money.

Entry of

■ale in auctioneers book.

Arbitration bond.

Notice by or to Railway conpanies. fee executed, was, of course, held insufficient to entitle him to the benefit of the option; Dawson v. Daw-8 Sim. 346. (q) The Quern v. London and South-Western Railway Company, 12 Jur. 973, Q. B.

(i) Kennedy v. Lee, 3 Mer. 411. "The same construction must be put upon a letter, that would be applied to the case of a more formal instrument; the only difference being, that a letter or correspondence, is generally more loose and inaccurate in respect of terms, and creates a greater difficulty in arriving at a precise conclusion." Per Lord Eldon, ibid. 451; see Thomas v. Blackmail, 1 Coll. 301.

(k) Owen v. Thomas, 3 Myl. & K. 353; Rose v. Cunynghame, 11 Ves. 550; Sug. 122.

(l) Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 234; Blagden v. Bradbear, 12 Ves. 466; Sug. 114, 121.

(m) Per Lord Rosslyn, 6 Ves. 17.

(n) Midland Counties Railway Company v Own, 1 Coll, 74.

(o) Adams v. Blackwall Railway Company, 14 Jur, 679, L. C.

(p) Tawney v. Lynn and Ely Hallway Company, 16 L. J., N. S., Ch. 282, V. C. E.; and see Reg. v. Birmingham and Oxford Junc-tion Railway Company, 15 L. T. 392.

(q) See Salmon v. Randall, 3 Myl. & C. 439; Stone v. Commercial Railway Company, 4 Myl. & Cr. 124; Walker v. Eastern Counties Railway Company, 6* Ha. 594. Where a will gave to A. an option of purchase within a limited period, a mere verbal declaration to the trustees that he intended to take the property, the purchase-money remaining unpaid and the conveyance unLands Clauses Consolidation Act, of their intention to take part only of premises used as a manufactory, does not amount to an agreement to take the whole, although under the 92nd section of the Act the owners may refuse to sell less than the whole (q): it has been recently determined, that under the above Act, a Company may give a second notice to the same landowner in respect of land within the limits to which their compulsory powers extend, if, from unforeseen circumstances, the Land taken under the first notice prove insufficienit for the authorized purposes of the undertaking (r) i so, where a landowner is entitled by notice to require the Company to purchase his interest in lands affected by the undertaking, the service of such notice constitutes a binding contract (s).

But - and the case may he considered as exceptive from the first genera] rule - where B. had entered into a parol agreement to sell an estate to W.. and B.'s agent made out and signed a rent-roll, entitled " Rent-roll of lands agreed to he sold by B. to W. from May 1762, at 21 years' purchase for the clear yearly rent." and the amount of rent was then corrected by 15. in his own handwriting, and the rent-roll so altered was delivered to W., and abstracts of title were also delivered, and B. sent letters to his creditors informing them of the sale, it was held, that there was no sufficient agreement (t); nor will a letter suggesting an abandonment of a parol agreement (v), take the case out of the Statute: but where, at Law, an agreement was produced in the following words, viz. "A. having agreed to purchase of B. for 250l. the two leasehold houses situate etc, B. hereby agrees to paper and paint; A. to pay 230l. at the time of the contract, and the remaining 20l. on the completion of the painting:" it was held, that the agreement to purchase, although recited as an existing agreement, was to be considered as forming part of the agreement produced (w).

Statutory power not exhausted by single notice.

Rent rolls, abstract, etc . insuffi cient; and letters to creditors; or letter written at an abandonment.

(r) Stamps v. Birmingham and Stour Valley Railway Company, 2 Phill. 673; 6 Rail. Ca. 123; and see Simpson v. Lancaster and CarRailway Company, 15 Sim. 580. (s) Doo v. London and Croydon