Lord Wrenbury. -

For brevity the plaintiffs are in the following judgment referred to as the buyer and the defend ant as the seller.

This is the buyer's action for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of sugar. He claims repayment of Rs. 7,500, which he paid as an advance on the price of the goods, and damages for non-delivery of the goods sold. The question in the case, and the only question is contract or no contract. The trial Judge held that there was no contract. Two of the Judges in the Supreme Court were for affirming his decision, but were not agreed on the grounds which they assigned for that con clusion. One held that there was a con tract, but that the buyer was estopped from relying upon it" the other that there was no contract and that no question of estoppel arose. The Chief Justice, on the contrary, held that there was a concluded, contract, and was unable to see how there could be any doubt in the case. Their Lordships are of the same opinion as the Chief Justice.

For the decision of the case there is no need to travel beyond the very elementary proposition of law that a contract is con cluded when in the mind of each con tracting party there is a consensus a