Judgment.-In this second appeal preferred by the defendant, the only question which arises for decision is whether a contract to sell goods could be assigned by the seller so as to enable the assignee to sue for damages for breach of contract on tender of performance by him. Both the Courts held that the goods were tendered within the due date by the assignee and that the defendant committed breach in not accepting delivery and in not paying the price, and that he was therefore liable for damages. They overruled the legal objection.

For the appellant reliance is placed on the general proposition of law that a promisor cannot assign his liabilities under a contract and that a promisee cannot be compelled by the promisor or by a third party to accept anyone but the promisor as the person liable to the promisee. Some of the leading English cases or the subject were cited in this connection, viz., British Waggon Co. v. Lea1, Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900), Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, (1900) v. Tolhurst2, affirmed in 1903 A.C. 414, Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries, Ltd.,3 Davies v. Collins4, as explaining the reason for the rule and as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document