Evening star., 1933-11-27

And In Hartwig agt. Rushing, supra. the
exchange of q prune ranch valued at
was held to be sale" within the bulk
sales act.
Williston, In his treatise on sales,
Identifies contracts of sale and contracts
of exchange for all purposes, saying that
the term sale" in q statute Is often
interpreted to include barter and any
transfer of personal property; that is.
Williston suggests the word sale" as
used in a statute may have even a
proadei definition than would be neces-
sary to term as sale the type Of trans
action under consideration He says:
In the common law, however, there
is no different rule applicable to con-
tract of sale from that which Is ap-
plicable to contract OF exchange. 1t
would seem unfortunate in codifying the
law OF sales to exclude contracts or
exchange which turn on precisely the
same principles and which differ. II at
all, only in name. The only doubtful
is whether they differ even In that re-
spect An exchange has been held uni
verSally In the United States 10 be
frauds relating to the sale Of goods.
So in the construction of other statutes
clude tran5actions for other than
money price
Broad Constructor of Word Upheld.
Although. in section ITO. williston
takes the point of view that section 8,
subdivision 2 Of the uniform sales act
merely includes contracts of barter
within its terms and that contract Of
sale is for money only. he seems merely
to be reverting to a strict terminolCgy
and not to conflict with the above quota
tion, since otherwise his own citations
do not bear him out. In Arnold VS..
North American Chemical Co., l22 N. E.
2S3 tMac5 1919 1t is stated that sale
means the transfer of property from
one person to another for "considera-
ton of value
tb) Section 9 of the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation act is no limita-
ton upon broad construction of the
word sale"
The Reconstruction Finance Corpora
ton act merely provides that price or
prices must be determined. but does rot
provide that the exchange must be for
money at that price. Nor is such an
implication considered necessary. In
this connection the uniform sales act
is persuasive. Section l 90 of the uni
form sales act provides that the sale OF
goods is an agreement whereby the
seller transfers the property in goods
to the buyer for a consideration called
the price" and section 9 t2). defining
price" says. the price may be made
payable in any personal property"
Barter and Sale Distinguished
Meecham in his book on sales. al
though not referring specifically to this
quotation, nevertheless contributes to
its clarihcation by emphasizing price in
distinguishing sale from barter. and
makes clear that money is important
only as a measure Of value and Is not
the thing that must be exchanged for
the article. He saws: 80 Sale Is to
be distinguished from barter or ex-
change, though the transactions are in
many respects very much alike. As has
been seen, sale is the transfer in con-
sideration Of price in money or its
equivalent Barter, on the other hand,
is the exchange of one article for an
other, no price in money being fixed
upon either. II, therefore. as is said in
cne case. property is taken at fixed
money price. the transfer amounts to a
sale. whether the price is paid in cash
or in goods'-but where one chattel Is
exchanged for another. no price being
attached. 1t is not sale
Numerous statements in the cases
may be adduced to support the distinc-
ton advanced by Meecham. Thus in
Picard VS. Mccormick. IL Mich. 76S
1882. the court said: If property
Is taken at a fixed money price the
transfer amounts to sale. whether the
sale is paid in cash or in goods" There
the plaintiff bought jewelry at value
of s4O0 and paid by a horse valued at
Sl60 and the balance In notes. See also
Quotes at Length From Meecham.
The issue is we'll presented by Mech
am himself in sections IA and Is.
where he discusses several cases, and
says:
In many of the cases the price was
to be paid partly in cash and partly in
goods, but this was a mere accident,
and is not the criterion Thus, where
horse was transferred for the sum OF
$50. and the owner received in ex-
change three notes of third persons
amounting to s4914 and also &c cents in
money, the transaction was held to be a
sale. In the absence of express evil
dence that an exchange only was in
tended said the court Uoomis VS..
Wainwright 1880. 81 VT. 500, "a sale
might justly be inferred from the fact
that the trade was governed by fixed
price for The horse, an agreed price
being essential to a proper bargain or
sale hut altopether needless IN the case