R W Cameron and Company v L Slutzkin Pty Ltd [1923] HCA 20

:

32 C.L.R.} OF AUSTRALIA. 81

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

R. W. CAMERON AND COMPANY . .. AppELLANT; PLAINTIFE, AND L. SLUTZKIN PROPRIETARY LIMITED . . Responvent. Derenpant,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Contract—Sale of goods—Sale by sample—Sale by description—Words not having H.C. or A.

common trade meaning—Evidence to explain meaning. 1923, B tr ting th d " y 2 contract in writing the appellant agreed to sell, and the respondent to Petes

buy, goods described in the writing by a term which was until then unknown y7, 13 44 to the respondent. That term in its ordinary sense was not descriptive of any 19; May 24. particular goods or quality of goods, and had no common trade meaning, but to persons who had previously bought goods from the appellant by that deserip- tion would have given an accurate description of the quality of the goods to ich JJ. which it was applied. Certain goods which were of the quality described

by the term were tendered to the respondent, who rejected them as not being

of the quality contracted for. An action having been brought by the appel-

lant for breach of the contract in not accepting the goods tendered,

Held, that evidence was properly admitted to show that, before the contract was made, a sample was submitted by the appellant to the respondent as repre- senting the goods intended to be described by the term ; and, therefore, that, as the goods tendered were inferior in quality to the sample, judgment was

properly given for the respondent. Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Zrvine C.J.) affirmed.

_ Apprats from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Two actions were brought in the Supreme Court by R. W. Cameron

& Co. against L. Slutzkin Proprietary Ltd., upon two contracts in

voL. XXXII, 6

H.C. or A. writing for the sale by the plaintiff to the defendant of, in the one