Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Blain Tate and Co. v. Sing Kee, 1866

[sale of goods]

Blain Tate and Co. v. Sing Kee

Mixed Court, Shanghai
15 September 1866
Source: The North-China Herald, 22 September 1866

MIXED COURT.

September 15th.

Before - CHUN WEI-YUEN,  SHU HAE-FUNG, C. ALABASTER, Esq.

BLAIN TATE & Co. v. SING-KEE.

   This was a suit for non-completion of contract; the defendant having failed to take delivery of certain shirtings for which he had contracted with defendant.

   The motive alleged by defendant for refusing the goods was that he had bought them from Blain, Tate & Co., as to red shirtings, and had resold them to Glover and Co., as such.  The latter, however, had rejected then on the ground that they were not such as they represented.  The defendant therefore, on the same ground, refused to take them from plaintiff.

   Mr. Tate maintained that he had sold by mister and had given no guarantee as to quality.  Sing-kee had come to him personally, without the intervention of the compradore or any third party, had taken away the muster, kept it for two days, brought it back and bought the shirtings.  He had heard no complaint of their quality till more than two months after the time of sale, when Sing-kee came back and rejected them.  Not knowing the defendant, he had insisted on Tls. 600 bargain money.  He had been obliged to remit home the price of the shirtings and, for this purpose, to hypothecate them to a bank at 12 per cent interest.  Had never seen Chen-li-tai who, Sing-kee now asserted, had actually concluded the bargain, but had dealt directly with Sing-kee whose signature would be found to the contract in the book produced.

   The Court here caused Sing-kee and Chen-li-tai to write the name Sing-kee and it was decided that the writing in the contract book was that of Chen-li-tai.

   SING-KEE declared that he had only received the muster on the day of signing the contract, which was concluded through the compradore.

   Mr. TATE declared that the compradore had nothing to do with the transaction, except receiving the bargain money after the contract had been concluded.

   The Court adjourned the case for the evidence of the compradore.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School