Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. With their letter of January 30, 1941, the defendants send to the plaintiff a pro forma invoice in duplicate and say as follows :-

Please return the duplicate of this pro forma invoice duly signed by you soon to us in view to obtain our delivery order to take delivery of the goods as per your order dated October 24, 1940, November 4, 1940, and November 6, 1940.
Thus the defendants themselves acknowledge on January 30, 1941, that those contracts were still alive. The duplicate invoice sent with the letter relates to fifty-five tons of kraft paper, and sets out sizes and dimensions. It is particularly to be observed that the price mentioned on this invoice signed by the defendants themselves is four annas six pies per pound. This is significant inasmuch as in the defendants' solicitors' letter of March 8, 1941, written after the defendants had repudiated the contracts, it was stated that in the pro forma invoice sent by the defendants the rate had been erroneously mentioned at four annas six pies per pound instead of seven annas six pies per pound being the rate prevailing, so the letter stated, on the date of despatch. By this correction the defendants were endeavouring to rely upon the printed term contained in the indents that prices were subject to alterations without notice and that the price prevailing at the date of despatch would be charged against the order, although the price written in on each of the three indents was four annas six pies, as is acknowledged by the defendants themselves in the pro forma invoice in question.

22. With his letter of February 3, 1941, the plaintiff returns to the defendants the pro forma invoice.

23. By their letter of February 4, 1941, the defendants again refer to the three indents and acknowledge the receipt of the pro forma invoice. They go on to say, We are awaiting with interest the necessary particulars and specifications for your balance of the above orders, which are now converted into box boards.

The defendants were inaccurate in stating that the orders had been converted into box boards. The position was that the indents were being kept alive, and the parties were seeing whether they could be carried out by the supply in part of box boards, the defendants having already agreed to supply fifty-five tons of kraft paper. By his letter of February 6, 1941, the plaintiff refers to the kraft paper invoice and informs the defendants that some of his clients had furnished him with the specification of what they would accept as substitute for the kraft paper. The specification is set out and the plaintiff informs the defendants that he would send them further advice as soon as he got them from his clients. Then the letter refers to the duplicate invoice which covered fifty-five bales of kraft paper which the defendants had agreed to supply, and says that instructions for the remaining bales of kraft paper would soon follow.