Story Case

Charles O'Donnell agreed to purchase $200 worth of hoops from David Cross. The hoops were stored in the latter's warehouse. O'Donnell inspected and accepted the hoops, and then named the steamer upon which they should be sent to him. The hoops were delivered to the steamer, but the steamer was sunk on her voyage. O'Donnell refused to pay for the hoops, and pleaded the Statute of Frauds. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Caulkins Vs. Hellman, Volume 47 New York Reports, Page 461; Volume 7 American State Reports, Page 461

By an oral contract, Hellman agreed to purchase wine from Caulkins. The wine was shipped to Hellman; he inspected it, and was not satisfied with the quality of it. He thereupon expressed his dissatisfaction, and asked what should be done. Caulkins brought an action to recover. He claimed that the wine had been delivered in accordance with the contract, and that Hellman was liable for the price.

Hellman put in defense, the Statute of Frauds. He contended that he had not accepted the wine, and, being an oral contract, it was unenforcible.

Mr. Justice Eapallo said: "Where a valid contract of sale is made in writing, a delivery pursuant to such contract, at the place agreed upon for delivery, or a shipment of goods, in conformity with the terms of the contract, will pass title to the vendee without any receipt or acceptance of the goods by him. But, if the contract is oral, and no part of the price is paid by the vendee, there must be not only a delivery of the goods by the vendor, but a receipt and acceptance of them by the vendee to pass the title or make the vendee liable for the price, and this acceptance must be voluntary and unconditional. Even the receipt of goods, without an acceptance, is not sufficient. Some act or conduct on the part of the vendee, or his authorized agent, manifesting an intention to accept the goods as a performance of the contract, and to appropriate them, is required to supply the place of a written contract. Since an intention to accept was not shown, judgment was given for Hellman.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The Statute of Frauds provides that if there has been receipt and acceptance of the goods, the contract is taken out of the statute, and is enforcible, although it is oral. Any act on the part of the buyer amounting to control over the goods, and inconsistent with ownership in the seller, will amount to acceptance, and acceptance without receipt.

In the Ruling Court Case, we have an example of receipt without acceptance, and, since both requirements were not met, the case was not taken out of the Statute.

In the Story Case, we apparently have a case of acceptance without receipt, since the goods were never received by O'Donnell personally. It will be noted, however, that O'Donnell named the steamer upon which the hoops should be carried, and, therefore, the steamship company was his agent. Delivery to a carrier designated by the purchaser, after he has accepted the goods, will amount to a delivery by the vendor, and a receipt of the goods by the purchaser. Hence, O'Donnell's defense is not good.