The English statute contained the words "for the price," and the word "price" has generally been copied in statutes in the United States. Lord Tenterden's Act,73 however, made use of the word "value," and it was subsequently held that the effect of this was to extend to all contracts for the sale of goods of the value of 10 and upwards the earlier statute. That is, "to substitute the word 'value' for the word 'price.' "74 Though the word "price" is used in almost all the American statutes, and the word "value" in none, the narrow construction which the English court suggests that it would have given to the Statute of Frauds, had it not been for Lord Tenterden's Act, has never been adopted in this country. Thus, contracts of barter are held to be within the terms of the statute.75 The importance of determining whether value is equivalent to price also arises where the contract is to sell an article for a fair price or to sell several articles for a lump price,76 or a contract to sell a quantity of goods as yet undetermined at a price to be determined by the number, weight, or measure of the goods.77

72 Dehority v. Parson, 97 Ind. 253; Gerndt v. Conradt,, 117 Wis. 15, 93 N. W. 804.

73 9 George IV, c. 14.

74 Harman v. Reeve, 25 L. J. C. P. 257.

75 Raymond v. Cotton, 104 Fed. 219, 43 C. C. A. 501; Kuhns v. Gate, 92 Ind. 66; Dowling v. McEenney, 124

Man. 478; Gorman v. BrosBard, 120 Mich. 611, 79 N. W. 903; Rutan v. Hinchman, 30 N. J. L. 255; Mianer v. Strong, 181 N. Y. 163, 168, 73 N. E. 965; supra, {517. But see Spinney v. Hill, 81 Minn. 316,84 N. W. 116.

76 Harman v. Reeve, 25 L. J. C. P. 257.

77 Watts v. Friend, 10 B. & C. 446;

That such bargains may be within the statute is clear from the authorities cited, but a subsidiary question is, as yet, not so clearly settled. Is the value of goods for the purpose of determining whether a contract to sell at a price to be fixed in the future is within the statute, to be regarded as the amount the parties, or a reasonable person in their position, would have expected, or is the value what it actually turns out to be, or is the true construction that which has been adopted in connection with contracts not to be performed within a year, namely, that if the value may not exceed the statutory amount, even though it probably will and, in fact, ultimately does, the contract is not within the statute. Probably the true view is that the matter depends on the ultimate value of the goods to be sold.78 This rule, however, leads to the curious result that not only may it be uncertain at the time the contract is made whether it is within the statute, but if the contract is utterly broken by the seller at the outset, it may happen that it never can be determined with certainty what the amount or value of the goods would have been if the contract had been carried out, and, therefore, whether the contract is within the statute.