Dement Bros. v. Coon

Citations

• 104 Wash. 603
• 177 P. 354

Syllabus

<p>Contracts (4) — Requisites — Mutuality — Sales. A writing signed by C. reciting that he sells wheat to D. for future delivery at a certain price, to which D. wrote the word “confirmed” and signed it, is not unilateral or void for want of mutuality, but is a sale binding on both parties.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute op (37) — Memorandum—Statement op Terms— Time por Payment. The failure of a contract for the sale of wheat for future delivery, to fix the time for payment, does not render it void under the statute of frauds; since in such case the law provides that payment and delivery shall be concurrent acts.</p> <p>Same (37). There is a sufficient compliance with the statute of frauds on the sale of wheat, payment to be made on delivery of warehouse receipts, where the memorandum of sale fixed the future delivery at one of two places to be chosen by the seller, but was silent as to time for payment, making payment and delivery concurrent acts; since the production of warehouse receipts would serve as proof of delivery according to the terms of the contract.</p> <p>Sales (77) — Failure to Deliver' — Excuses. The rejection of one sample of wheat, submitted at a place other than the place of delivery, does not excuse delivery according to the terms of sale covering several grades, especially where the parties thereafter agreed upon an extension of -time for delivery.</p>