The observations of Lord Goddard C. J. in Sachs vs Miklos (1948) (I All E. R. 67) considerably limit the scope of Rosenthal vs Alderton, and, should prices hereafter fall, the courts will probably be faced with the task of reconciling Rosenthal vs Alderton with the settled rule that damages, whether in contract or tort, are to be assessed as at the date of the accrual of the cause of action and that subsequent fluctuations upwards or downwards in rates of exchange or commodity prices, before or during legal proceedings, are irrelevant: See the decision of the House of Lords in section section Celia vs section section Volturno (supra) particularly the speeches of Lord Buckmaster ([1921] 2 A. C. 544, 548), of Lord Sumner (ibid., 556), and Lord Wrenbury (ibid., 563), and the long line of cases of buyers who sue sellers for conversion of, or for failure to deliver, goods bargained and sold (such as France vs Gaudet where the damages are always assessed as at the date of the breach." The qualification added by the Court of Appeal on the bailor 's right to elect to sue in detinue, "at any rate where he was not aware of the conversion at the time",. has also been commented upon by Paton on " Bailment in the Common Law " at page 405, that on a strict historical basis, this qualification is unnecessary, but the Courts have added it to prevent a plaintiff delaying his action in order to get the advantage of a rising market.