without disclosing the name
A sale by a factor crcatcs a contract between the owner ami buyer, although unknown to each other, aud this ride holds even in cases where the factor acts upon a del crcdcrc commission. Scrimshirc v. Alderton. Strange 1182, and cxpartc Murray Co. B. I- 379. 5. Ed. Hence if a factor sells goods, and the owner gives notice to the buyer to pay the price to him and not to the factor, http://www.ndorg.com/ the buyer will not be justified in afterwards paying the factor, and the owner will be entitled "to recover the price in an action against the buyer, unlcsj the factor has a lien on such price. Drinkwatcr v. Goodwin, Cowp. 251. If goods are bought by a person as a broker, though without disclosing the name of the skechers shape ups purchaser, until he has bccomc insolvent, the purchaser thus knowing that the party acted as an agent, cannot set off the price of the goods against a debt due to him from the broker, but is still liable to the vendor. Waring v. Favcnc, 1 Camp. 85. But where a factor, acting under a del crcdere commission, sells goods as his own, and the buyer docs not know of any principal, the buyer may, in an reebok zigtech action brought against him' by the principal, set manolo blahnik off a debt due to him from* the factor. George v. Claggctt, 7 Term. Kcp. 359. And the circum¬stance of persons selling goods being described in the catalogue of sale as sworn brokers, is not sufficient notice to the purchaser that they arc only reebok easytone agents in that transaction, to prevent him from dealing with them as reebok easy tone principals. Blackburn v. Scholes, 2 Camp. 343. Moore v. Clcmcntson, 2 Camp. 24. And where goods are sold by a broker without disclosing his principal, the purchaser is justified in paying him in the same, or in a different zigtech manner from reebok that stipulated for by the terms of the contract > thoug'n it would be otherwise where the principal is disclosed at the time of the sale. (Coatcs v. Lewis, 1 Camp. 444. Blackburn v. Scholcs, 2 Camp. 343. and Favcnc v. Bennett. 11 East. 3G. which appear to over-rule the case of Kymcr v. Sawercropp, 1 Camp. 109. aud 180. c.) Where however a factor sells jimmy choo shoes goods as a principal, and before they arc all delivered, or any part of them paid for, the purchaser is informed that they belong to a third person, in an action by the latter lor the pricc of them, the purchaser cannot set off' a debt due to him from the factor. Moore v. Cicmentson, 2 Camp. 22.
Where a broker is authorized by one man to sell goods, and to bur such goods for reebok zig another, an entry in his books of a sale of these goods from the one to the other, signed by him, is in general a binding contract between the parties, the bought and sold note, which is a copy of manolo blahnik shoes this entry, is not sent to the jimmy choo parties for their approbation,
Recent Comments