Norman Macleod, C J - (1.)The plaintiffs, a Corporation organised under the laws of the State of Maine, in the United States of America, having its principal place of business at 25, Broad Street, Now York, filed a suit against the defendants, a mercantile firm in Bombay, on a contract, which is said in para. 3 of the plaint to be contained in certain correspondence which took place between the parties, whereby it was alleged that the plaintiffs agreed to sell the defendants, and that the defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs, 190 tons haft an inch round steel bars September-October shipment ex-factory, ninety tons at 112 dollars and one hundred tons at 116 dollars per ton respectively o.i.f.c. Bombay, on the terms and conditions further and more particularly appearing in the said correspondence. A copy of the correspondence that had passed between the parties and of their solicitors is annexed to the plaint and marked D. The correspondence included no less than thirty-seven items beginning on June 8, 1920, and ending on April 21, 1921.
(2.)In their written statement the defendants alleged that a firm offer was made by them based on orders received by them from merchants in Bombay and Calcutta, and that the same was accepted by one A. F. Pringle on behalf of the plaintiffs, who represented to the defendants that he had authority to accept offers on behalf of the plaintiffs. With reference to paragraph 1 of the plaint the defendants claimed that, as a result of the defendants offer to A, F. Pringle on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were bound to supply to the defendants 190 tons of steel bars of July-August shipment and that the price of ninety out of the said 190 tons was to be calculated at the rate of 112 dollars per ton with half per cent, commission for the defendants, and that the price of the remaining one hundred tons was to be calculated at the rate of 116 dollars per ton less five per cent, commission for the defendants. The defendants contended that they had committed no breach of the contract set up by the plaintiffs.
(3.)I should have thought myself that the defendants before they filed their written statement ought to have applied to the . Judge in Chambers for better particulars of the plaintiffs claim. It is quite impossible for any Court to be asked to spell out a contract out of thirty-seven items of correspondence which had passed between the parties, especially as no date is alleged on which the negotiations crystallised into a contract, although it is to be presumed that, as the plaintiffs alleged, the contract was to be for September-October shipment, it must have been entered into before September.