The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921. Page: 56
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
272 FEDERAL REPORTER
We do not think that the agreement made between the parties in-
volved any such indefinitefiess as invalidated it. The price to be paid
was fixed. The number of pairs of shoes to be made and delivered was
determined. The kind of leather to be used was agreed upon. The style
of shoes was specified. The fact that the manufacturer did not know
the size and the width of the various kinds of shoes it was to furnish
was alone left for future determination. But it was not left open to
be determined by both contracting parties. It was for the sole deter-
inination of the defendant. As long as the manufacturer knew how
many pairs of patent leather shoes he was to furnish at $3.50 per pair,
it was not important that he should know whether they were to be size
7 or size 8 until the defendant wanted the shoes made up, and so it was
agreed that defendant should furnish that information thereafter, and
far enough in advance to enable the shoes to be delivered when they
were wanted. It cannot be said that this left the contract so indefinite
as to be unenforceable.
In Single Paper Co. v. Hammermill Paper Co., 96 App. Div. 535,
89 N. Y. Supp. 116, the parties entered into a contract to sell and deliver
50 tons of No. 1 sulphite manilla paper upon a certain basis of weight
at 3 cents per pound. The order given and accepted specified the
amount and general kind and quality of paper to be furnished, the
price, and the details as to shipment and delivery. By agreement it was
understood that certain details were later to be furnished relating to
the size and weight of the sheets. The information as to these omitted
details was to be furnished subsequently at certain stipulated times. It
was held that the contract was not made indefinite because the plain-
tiff was left to determine the details of size and weight, and that the de-
fendant, having accepted the offer, could not cancel it; the plaintiff not
being in default as to furnishing the information as to size and weight.
"In our opinion," said the court, "the contract was not rendered in-
complete or inaefinite, in its substantial provisions and requirements,
because plaintiff was left in the future to furnish these details of size
It clearly appears that the contract was breached, and that the dam-
ages sustained by the defendant exceed the plaintiff's demand.
GASTON, WILLIAMS & WIGMORE OF CANADA, Limited, v. WARNER.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. March 2, 1921.)
1. Sales = 2-Law of domicile does not always govern transfers of person-
The domicile of the owner is not always controlling as to the law which
governs a contract for the sale of personal property, but such sale may,
like all sales of land, be governed by the law of the place where the
property is situated.
2. Shipping C=33--Sale passes title, regardless of registration.
As between the parties, the sale and delivery of a vessel passes the
title at common law, regardless of the question of registration, which is
:For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 272: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States and the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, June-August, 1921., legislative document, 1921; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38843/m1/78/: accessed September 21, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.