The whole agreement must appear from the writing.

(i) The writing required by the fourth section of the Statute of Frauds need not be executed with pen and ink; the note of the agreement may be made in pencil or print, by engraving, lithography or photography, or "in any other mode of representing or reproducing visible words." And the signature of the party to be charged or his agent may be affixed by any similar means. See Schneider v.

Norris, 2 M. & S. 286; Geary v. Physic, 5B. & C. 234; Bennett v. Brumfitt, L. R, 3 C. P. 28; Bench v. Bench, 2 P. D. 60; Tourret v. Cripps, 48 L. J. N. S. Ch. 567; stat. 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 20.

(j) Seagood v. Meale, Prec. Ch. 560; Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 10; Blagden v. Bradbcar, 12 Ves. 466, 471.

(k) Williams v. Lake, 2 E. & E. 349.

(l) See next paragraph.

(m) Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. 400; Elmore v. Kingscote, 5 B. & C. 583, 584; Morgan v. Milman, 3 De G. M. & G. 24. It is thought that the rule applying to the sale of goods, that in the absence of express agreement as to the price the law implies an agreement to buy at a reasonable price (Hoadley v. McLaine, 10 Bing. 482, 487; Joyce v. Swann, 17 C. B. N. S. 84, 102; stat. 56 & 57 Vict. c. 71, s. 8 (2)), has no application to the sale of land. This rule appears to have been laid down with respect to commodities so regularly sold that the market or the usual price is easily ascertainable. With regard to land, the law of specific performance of contracts to sell it is founded on the principle that the advantage of the possession of a and any other terms of the bargain (except, of course, such as are implied by law, as that a good title shall be shown (n)) must be defined (o).

With regard to the question, What is a sufficient description of the parties to the contract, or the property to be sold? the rule is id cerium est quod cerium reddi potest (p). Thus a man may be sufficiently identified by reference to some character which he fills, if there can be but one answer to the inquiry, To whom does the description apply (q)? So that the description of a vendor as the proprietor, owner or mortgagee of certain land is good enough (r). But if the description be so vague that it does not necessarily apply to some particular person, it is insufficient. Thus it is not particular piece of land may be inestimable, and no amount of money may be assessable as an exact equivalent for it; Adderley v. Dixon, 1 S. & S. 607, 610; Falcke v. Gray, 4 Drew. 651, 657; Sexier v. Pearce, 1900, 1 Ch. 341, 346; see below, Chap. XIX. s. 3. An express agreement to buy land at its fair value is, however, valid, and would, it seems, be specifically enforced; Grant, M. R., Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. 400, 407; Cranworth, C, Morgan v. Milman, 3 De G. M. & G. 24, 34; Sug. V. & P. 287. And an agreement to buy at the fair value of the land may be inferred from the terms of the memorandum; see Gregory v. Mighell, 18 Ves. 328, 333, 334; Gourlay v. Somerset, 19 Ves. 429, 431. But it is submitted that, if the memorandum do not specify the price or the means of ascertaining it, and contain no evidence of an intention to sell at a fair price, it is insufficient to prove a contract of sale. It is quite clear that, where the price is in fact agreed upon, it must be mentioned in the memorandum; Elmore v. Kingscote, ubi sup.; Re Kharoskhoma, etc. Syndi-cate, L897, '- Ch. 451, 464, 467. Where the parties intend that a particular piece of land shall be the object of an agreement of sale between them, but have not determined whether the price shall be (1) a definite sum of money, or (2) a sum to be ascertained in Borne specified manner, or (3) a sum equivalent to the fair value of the land, it is thought that their agreement as to the sale rests incomplete, and does not amount to a contract legally enforceable.

Description of the parties.

(n) See Fowls v. Freeman, 9 Ves. 351.

(o) Cooper v. Wood, 26 Beav. 293; Van Praagh v. Everidge, 1903, 1 Ch. 434.

(p) Rossiter v. Miller, 3 App. Cas. 1124, 1141.

(q) Potter v. Duffield, L. R. 18 Eq. 4, 7; Carr v. Lynch, 1900, 1

Ch. 613.

(r) Sale v. Lambert, L. R. 18 Eq. 1: Rossiter v. Miller, ubi sup. So the descriptions "the executers of A." (Hood v. Lord Barenough to describe the party to a contract of sale as the vendor of certain property, or as the client or friend of a named agent (s). The same general rule is applied in determining the sufficiency of the description of the property sold, parol evidence being admissible in either case to elucidate the description (t). Thus in a written agreement for the sale of Mr. Ogilvie's house (u), or Trogues Farm (x), or the Ashford Hall Estate (y), or of the property sold on a day specified at the Sun Inn, Pinxton (s), the land sold is ascertained with sufficient certainty to make the contract valid and enforceable; and it may be shown by oral evidence what land in fact answers to each particular description. So also "the property in Cable Street" has been admitted to be equivalent to all the vendor's property in Cable Street, and so sufficient to uphold the memorandum (a). And it has even been held that a memorandum of sale between two persons named at a price specified of "twenty-four acres of land at Totmonslow" contained a description sufficiently ascertaining the land sold to satisfy the Statute of Frauds (b).

Rington, L. R. 6 Eq. 218), "a trustee for Bale of certain perty" (Catling v. King, 5 Ch. D.. 660) have been held sufficient.

Description of the property.

Plant v. Bourne.

(s) Potter v. Buffield, ubi sup.; Jarrett v. Hunter, 34 Ch. D. 182; Lavery v. Pursell, 39 Ch. D. 508, 518.

(t) Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53; Shardlow v. Cotterell, 20 Ch. D. 90.98; Plant v.Bourne, 1897, 2Ch. 281.

(u) Ogilvie v. Foljambe, 3 Mer. 53, 61.

(x) Goodtitle d. Radford v. Southern, 1 M. & S. 299.

(y) Rickctts v. Turquand, 1 H. L. C. 472, 487, 493.

(z) Shardlow v. Cotterell, 20 Ch. D. 90.