# collected Title of the case: Pignataro v. Gilroy [1919] 1 K.B. 459. Summary of Facts: Gilroy sold to Pignataro 140 bags of rice, the particular bags being unascertained. On February 27 Pignataro sent a cheque for the price and asked for a delivery order. Gilroy sent a delivery order for 125 bags from a wharf, and wrote saying that the remaining 15 bags were ready for delivery at his place of business. Pignataro did not send for the 15 bags until March 25, when it was found they had been stolen without any negligence on Gilroy’s part. Pignataro sued to recover from Gilroy the price he had paid for the 15 bags. Issues: 1. Whether Gilroy has appropriated the contract? 2. Whether Pignataro assented to such appropriation? 3. Whether Pignataro could recover the price claimed? Decision: Pignataro could not succeed and could not recover the price. Reasoning: Gilroy had appropriated the 15 bags to the contract, and Pignataro’s assent to the appropriation was to be inferred from his conduct in not objecting. Therefore, the property in the 15 bags passed to Pignataro.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 05:04:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015