Lewis v. Elliot Bay Logging Co.

Citations

• 112 Wash. 83
• 191 P. 803
• 1920 Wash. LEXIS 693

Syllabus

<p>Frauds, Statute op .(34)—Sale op Goods—Memorandum—Sufficiency. A letter written by the seller of logs, offering to let the buyer have “fir” at a certain price is insufficient as a memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds, since it failed to designate the quantity to be sold.</p> <p>Same (34)—Sale of Goods—Memorandum—Sufficiency. Where a memorandum, signed by the seller of goods, failed to designate the quantity to be sold, he cannot be held liable upon the letter of the buyer which, for the first time, sufficiently designated the quantity of the subject-matter of the sale, since the seller could not be charged upon a memorandum which he did not sign.</p> <p>Same (34, 58)—Sale of Goods—Memorandum—Parol Evidence to Show Essentials. The quantity of the subject-matter of a sale of goods being an essential term of the memorandum of sale, parol evidence is not admissible to show that the word “fir,” used in a letter written by the seller to the buyer, referred to a raft of logs and the quantity thereof.</p>