Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Co. v. Oelrichs & Co.

Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Co. v. Oelrichs & Co.

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the brokers' bought and sold notes were binding on the purchasers by acquiescence and thereby established a contract within the Statute of Frauds, and (2) in a sale by sample, absent a proved general mercantile usage to the contrary known to both parties, the place of delivery (New York) is also the place for inspection, so the purchasers breached the contract by refusing to inspect and accept in New York.

Citation
(1894) 23 SCR 682
Parties
Appellants / Defendants: Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Co.; Respondents / Plaintiffs: Oelrichs & Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 1894
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods; Contract Dispute; Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Sale by Sample, Place of Delivery, Inspection of Goods, Statute of Frauds, Mercantile Usage, Brokers' Authority and Ratification, Breach of Contract, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Sale of Goods Agency Evidence Commercial Law Sale by Sample Place of Delivery Inspection of Goods +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Co.

Appellants / Defendants

Oelrichs & Co.

Respondents / Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods; Contract Dispute; Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed within the Statute of Frauds given brokers’ actions
  2. 2 Whether brokers (Cass & Mote) had authority or were ratified to bind the purchasers
  3. 3 Whether goods sold by sample required inspection at place of delivery or at purchasers’ mill

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because (1) the brokers' bought and sold notes were binding on the purchasers by acquiescence and thereby established a contract within the Statute of Frauds, and (2) in a sale by sample, absent a proved general mercantile usage to the contrary known to both parties, the place of delivery (New York) is also the place for inspection, so the purchasers breached the contract by refusing to inspect and accept in New York.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.