. Selections from Leake's Elements of the law of contracts and Finch's cases on contracts . reed time in consequence of a request to him to do so made by the vendee before the expiration of the agreed time, and where after the expiration of the agreed time, and within a reasonable time, the vendor proposes ^ ,. to deliver and the vendee refuses to accept, the vendor can recover damages. He can properly aver and prove that he was ready and V , willmg to dehver according to the terms of the original contract. He ^^^ / shows that he was so, but that he did not offer to deliver within the ! agreed
. Selections from Leake's Elements of the law of contracts and Finch's cases on contracts . reed time in consequence of a request to him to do so made by the vendee before the expiration of the agreed time, and where after the expiration of the agreed time, and within a reasonable time, the vendor proposes ^ ,. to deliver and the vendee refuses to accept, the vendor can recover damages. He can properly aver and prove that he was ready and V , willmg to dehver according to the terms of the original contract. He ^^^ / shows that he was so, but that he did not offer to deliver within the ! agreed time because he was within such time requested by the vendee not to do so. In such case it is said that the original con- ~^ tract is unaltered, and that the arrangement has reference only to the mode of performing it. But, if the alteration of the period of delivery were made at the request of the vendor, though such request were made during the agreed period for delivery, so that the vendor would \v^ J be obliged, if he sued for a non-acceptance of an offer to deliver after l,.,-. BILBOROUGH V. HOLMES. 1027 the agreed period, to rely upon the assent of the vendee to his re-quest, he could not aver and prove that he was ready and willing todeliver according to the terms of the origmal contract. The statementshows that he was not. He would be driven to rely on the assent ofthe vendee to a substituted time of delivery, that is to say, to an alteredcontract or new contract. This he camiot do so as to enforce hisclaim. This seems to be the result of the cases which are summed upin Hickman v. Haynes (a). In the present case, the plaintiffs cannot prove that they were readyand willmg to deliver the disputed iron in July. They camiot saythat, being so ready, they withheld an offer to deliver in July at therequest of the defendant made in July. The day after the end of Julythey could not have insisted on an acceptance of iron then offered tothe defendant. They attempt to enforce
Size: 2615px × 956px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, bookpublis, booksubjectcontracts
