Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
1-1918
Abstract
In Morris v. Baron and Co., (House of Lords, 1917), 87 L. J. R. (K. B.) 145, plaintiff and defendant had entered into a contract of sale and plaintiff, as vendor, had delivered part of the goods agreed upon. Delivery of the remainder would have been a condition precedent to any recovery by the plaintiff. This contract, however, was followed by a second one, not in writing, whereby plaintiff was absolved from delivering the rest of the goods, but by which he agreed that he would deliver them if the defendant should so request. Thereafter plaintiff brought this action for the "price" of the goods delivered. The defendant set up, by way of counterclaim, plaintiff's failure to deliver the rest of the goods as requested under the second contract. The court held that the second contract, although not in writing, absolved the plaintiff from having to deliver all the goods under the first contract, and therefore allowed him to recover for the goods delivered, but that, because it was not in writing, the defendant could not maintain his counterclaim for breach of it.
Recommended Citation
Waite, John B. "Effectiveness of Oral Contracts, Within the Statute of Frauds." Mich. L. Rev. 16, no. 8 (1918): 624-7.