This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Receipt within the meaning of the statute is the acquisition by the vendee, and the corresponding surrender by the vendor, of the right of possession of the property sold.1 The act of the ponderous to be taken into actual custody have been held sufficient.11 Some courts have refused to allow words alone to constitute a symbolic delivery of articles, however ponderous.12 Since the vendee must acquire the right to the possession of the goods sold, conduct of the vendor showing a retention of a lien for the price, on the goods sold, prevents the transaction from amounting to receipt and acceptance.13 So if the goods are left in the possession of the vendor pending an inventory to determine their price, there is no receipt and acceptance, even though the vendor at the request of the vendee, makes announcement to others of the transfer, and sends them orders to be filled for the vendee in place of the vendor.14
Conn. 229; 56 Atl. 562. In Utah the original statute of frauds provided for acceptance 'or receipt; but this was held to be impliedly repealed by a later statute of evidence requiring acceptance and receipt. Hudson Furniture Co. v. Carpet Co., 10 Utah 31; 36 Pac. 132.
5 Gilman v. Hill. 36 N. H. 311; Caulkina v. Hellman. 47 N. Y. 449;
7 Am. Rep. 461; Dinnie v. Johnson.
8 N. D. 153; 77 N. W. 612.
6 Corbett v. Wolford, 84 Md. 426; 35 Atl. 1088.
7 Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529; 44 N. W. 771.
8 Cusack v. Robinson, 1 B. & S. 299.
9 Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529; 44 N. W. 771.
10 Garfield v. Paris. 96 U. S. 557; Corbett v. Wolford, 84 Md. 426; 35 Atl. 1088.
1 (In the following quotation "revendee in taking possesion with the vendor's consent, of the thing sold is a sufficient receipt where though incomplete, it extends as far as circumstances permit.2 So, as has already been stated, taking possession of part only of the personalty sold is sufficient.3 If the statute prohibits making a contract on Sunday, some courts treat receipt and acceptance as so far an essential element of the contract that a receipt and acceptance on Sunday does not make the contract valid.4 Property received on Sunday may be accepted on a week-day. Thus where A bought an organ, book and stool by oral contract and the organ was delivered on Sunday, and subsequently the book and stool were delivered on a week-day, the vendee recognizing the organ as his, receipt and acceptance exist.5 Greater difficulties are presented where there has been no actual transfer of possession from the vendor to the vendee. Constructive or symbolic delivery with the assent of the vendee may be a sufficient receipt.6 Thus the transfer of a bill of lading,7 or a delivery ticket,8 or the indorsement and transfer of a stock certificate,9 have all been held sufficient receipt and acceptance, if by their terms such instruments were made assignable. Even the indorsement of an undelivered stock certificate, retained by the vendor as security for a note of the vendee has been held to be sufficient receipt and acceptance.10 Constructive or symbolic receipt and aceptance of articles too ceipt" is termed "delivery.") "There must be a delivery of the goods with intent to vest the right of possession in the vendee and there must be an actual acceptance by the latter with intent to take as owner." Belt v. Marriott, 9 Gill (Md.) 331; quoted in Corbett v. Wolford, 84 Md. 426, 429; 35 Atl. 1088. It is incorrect to use "delivery" as synonymous with " receipt." Good-wine v. Cadwallader, 158 Ind. 202; 61 N. E. 939.
2Remick v. Sandford. 120 Mass. 309; Cunningham v. Ashbrook. 20 Mo. 553; Somers v. McLaughlin, 57 Wis. 358; 15 N. W. 442.
3 See Sec. 708.
4 Ash v. Aldrich, 67 N. H. 581; 39 Atl. 442; Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529; 44 X. W. 771.
5 Schmidt v. Thomas, 75 Wis. 529; 44 X. W. 771.
6 Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. (U. S.) 384; Michigan, etc., R. R. v. Phillips. 60 111. 190.
7 Wadhams & Co. v. Balfour, 32 Or. 313; 51 Pac. 642.
8 Webster v. Granger, 78 111. 230.
9 Meehan v. Sharp, 151 Mass. 564; 24 X. E. 907.
10 St. Paul, etc., Co. v. Howell, 59 Minn. 295; 61 N. W. 141.