Story Case

Alfred Anderson had 500 sacks of wheat in the warehouse of Smith & Sons. The Globe Milling Company, by oral agreement, bought the 500 sacks from Anderson for $600. It notified Smith & Sons of the purchase and requested them to hold the wheat at its expense, until further orders. A sudden slump in the wheat market caused the Globe Milling Company to repudiate its agreement, and refuse to consummate the sale at the price agreed upon, contending that since the promise was not in writing, it was not legally bound to accept the wheat under the Statute of Frauds. Anderson contended that there was an acceptance and receipt of the wheat, thus satisfying the requirement of the statute, in the absence of a written agreement. Was there an acceptance of the wheat?

Ruling Court Case. Edwards Vs. Brown, Volume 98 Maine Reports, Page 165; Volume 56 Atlanta Reports, Page 654

Early in June, Edwards and Brown made a verbal agreement that Edwards would buy Brown's hay, stored in the latter's barn; it was estimated that there were between fifteen to twenty tons. It was agreed that Edwards was to pay $6 a ton therefor. Edwards was given permission to press the hay in Brown's barn; afterwards, Brown was to haul the hay to the depot, or to the Edwards' place of business. Edwards had the hay pressed and paid $2 per ton for such services. When the pressing was done, Brown refused to permit Edwards to remove the hay. Thereupon, Edwards brought this action against Brown for damages. Brown contended that he was not liable, because the contract was not in writing, and so not enforcible under the Statute of Frauds.

Mr. Justice Straut said: "Giberson was employed and paid by Edwards to press the hay. For that purpose, he was agent of the plaintiff. In pressing he acted for Edwards, the plaintiff, and had actual physical possession of the hay while so engaged. The permission of Brown to this is evidence of a delivery by him. This was a sufficient delivery and receipt by the plaintiff Edwards, to satisfy the Statute of Frauds."

Since there was acceptance, the writing is not now necessary, and judgment is given for Edwards.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Contracts for the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise are not enforcible unless the provisions of the statute are complied with. The statute usually does not apply to a sale, the amount of which is less than $50. It provides that the transaction must be evidenced by a memorandum, signed by the party to be charged therewith; but the statute usually also provides that, if the property sold is accepted by the buyer, it is not necessary that it should be evidenced by writing. The acceptance is an act sufficiently significant to evidence the sale. It may be actual or constructive. Actual acceptance is indicated when the property sold is actually delivered over into the possession of the buyer. Constructive acceptance is shown when the buyer takes or assumes possession of, or control over, the property, even though the property is not actually moved. Either form of acceptance is sufficient to take the transaction from the operation of the Statute of Frauds.

In the Ruling Court Case, the acceptance was in the form of a constructive acceptance, evidenced by the fact that Giberson, the agent of Edwards, took control of and pressed the hay. Thus, even though the hay was not moved from Brown's barn, the action of Edwards through his agent indicated the intent to assume control of the property.

In the Story Case, another form of constructive acceptance is shown. There, the intent of the Globe Milling Company to assume control was evidenced by constituting Smith & Sons its bailee of the wheat. The relation of bailor and bailee raises sufficient evidence of the intent to accept, to remove the transaction from the Statute of Frauds. Some cases show that the seller may become the bailee of the purchaser, before the purchase' price is paid, thus constituting a constructive acceptance. The acceptance in the Story-Case, constructive in character, was sufficient and the contract must stand.