In order to render enforceable a contract within the Sale of Goods Act (Ont. s. 6; U. K. s. 4: see 24), it is sufficient that some note or memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf.

Questions as to the sufficiency of the note or memorandum and of the signature of the defendant or his agent and as to the agent's authority may arise under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds as well as under the Sale of Goods Act (s. 17 of the Statute of Frauds). The. decisions on these questions are so numerous that no attempt can be made here to do more than refer to some of the recent cases. The earlier English cases are collected in 25 Halsbury, Laws of England, pp. 134 ff., and Benjamin, Sale, 5th ed., 1906, pp. 230 ff.; cf. Chalmers, Sale of Goods, 7th ed., 1910, pp. 23-4; Willis, Sale of Goods, 98 ff.; Wain v. Warlters, 1804, 5 East 10, 6 R.C. 230; Laythoarp v. Bryant, 1836, 2 Bing. N.C. 735, 23 R.C. 239, and notes in 6 R.C. at pp. 249 ff.; Caton v. Caton, 1867, L.R. 2 H.L. 127, 6 R. C. 255;Jones v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., 1877, 2 Q.B.D. 314, 6 R.C. 272; Smith v. Surman, 1829, 9 B. & C. 561, 23 R. C. 230.

As to the contents and nature of the note or memorandum, see the following more recent cases:

Dewar v. Mintoft, [1912] 2 K.B. 373 (parties named but not described as seller and buyer; identification of document referred to).

Lovesy v. Palmer, [1916] 2 Ch. 233 (principal not named or described).

North v. Loomis, [1919] 1 Ch. 378 (omission of unimportant stipulation waived by plaintiff).

Auerbach v. Nelson, [1919] 2 Ch. 383 (identification of subject matter).

Stokes v: Whicher, [1920] 1 Ch. 411 (reading documents together).

Keen v. Mear, [1920] 2 Ch. 574 (only one of two vendors mentioned).

Standard Realty Co. v. Nicholson, 1911, 24 O.L.R. 46 (contract in name of agent).

Bailey v. Dawson, 1912, 25 O.L.R. 387, 1 D.L.R. 487 (reading documents together).

Maybury v. O'Brien, 1911, 25 O.L.R. 229 (reading documents together; contents of writing), reversed, 1912, 26 O.L.R. 628, 6 D.L.R. 268, on other grounds.

Thomson v. Playfair, 1912, 26 O.L.R. 624, 6 D.L.R, 263 (receipt and copy of receipt).

Doran v. McKinnon, 1916, 53 Can. S.C.R. 609, 31 Dl. R. 307, affirming 35 O.L.R, 349, 26 D.L.R. 488 (reading documents together).

Bennett v. Stodgell, 1916, 36 O.L.R. 45, 28 D.L.R. 639 (vendor not named).

Sparks v. Clement, 1917, 41 O.L.R. 344 (identification of subject-matter).

Campbell v. Mahler, 1918, 43 O.L.R. 395, affirmed, 1919, 45 O.L.R. 44, 47 D.L.R. 722 (omission of time of payment) ; cf. House v. Brown, 1907, 14 O.L.R. 500 (time for payment not agreed upon).

Meighen v. Couch, 1913, 23 Man. R. 117, 9 D.L.R. 829 (terms sufficiently expressed in letters).

Pearson v. O 'Brien, 1912, 22 Man. R. 175, 4 D.L.R. 413 (omission of some terms).

Conley v. Paterson, 1912, 22 Man. R. 127, 2 D.L.R. 94 (reference to future formal contract; "agents for the owner").

Selkirk Land & Investment Co. v. Robinson, 1913, 23 Man. R. 774, 13 D.L.R. 936 (reading documents together; principal not named).

McInnis Farms v. McKenzie, 1913, 23 Man. R. 120, 12 D.L.R. 100 (omission of terms).

Pulford v. Loyal Order of Moose, 1913, 23 Man. R. 641, 14 D.L.R. 577 (contract in name of agent).

As to. the signature to the note or memorandum or the authority of the agent, see the following cases:

Daniel v. Trefusis, [1914] 1 Ch. 788 (agent authorized to sign document for another purpose).

North v. Loomis, [1919] 1 Ch. 378 (solicitor authorized to complete contract).

Thirkell v. Cambi, [1919] 2 K. B. 590 (solicitor instructed to deny contract).

Grindell v. Bass, [1920] 2 Ch. 487 (defence signed by counsel).

Keen v. Mear, [1920] 2 Ch. 574 (estate agent; partner). Standard Realty Co. v. Nicholson, 1911, 24 O.L.R. 46 (authority of agent).

Maybury v. O'Brien, 1912, 26 O.L.R. 628, 6 D.L.R. 268 (authority of agent).

McInnis Farms v. McKenzie, 1913, 23 Man. R. 120, 12 D.L.R. 100 (signature of one of two personal representatives).

A letter signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf, and referring to other letters as containing the terms of_a_contract, may be a sufficient note or memorandum in writing, although it repudiates liability on the contract; but if, while referring to other letters, it refuses to admit that they contain the terms of the contract, it is not a sufficient note or memorandum.

Thirkell v. Cambi, [1919] 2 K. B. 590, distinguishing Bailey v. Sweeting, 1861, 9 C.B.N.S. 843; Wilkinson v. Evans, 1866, L.R. 1 C.P. 407; Buxton v. Rust, 1871, L.R. 7 Ex. 1, 279. See also the following cases:

Dewar v. Mintoft, [1912] 2 K.B. 373 (repudiation on ground that writer not liable).

Campbell v. Mahler, 1918, 43 O.L.R. 395, affirmed, 1919, 45 O.L.R. 44, 47 D.L.R. 722 (repudiation on ground of misunderstanding).

Martin v. Haubner, 1896, 26 Can. S.C.R. 142 (letter admitting contract by agent, but denying agent's authority), followed in Petrie v. Rae, 1919, 46 O.L.R. 19.