Controlled supply of bricks remained a sale where contractual freedom survived, so sales tax liability was upheld.

Supply of bricks under a control order was treated as sale transactions liable to sales tax because the regulatory regime did not exclude the essential elements of contract. Although licensing, permits, price fixation and compliance directions were controlled, the parties retained freedom over matters such as delivery date and place, payment, and transport arrangements. Earlier authority on controlled supplies was distinguished on facts, while the later steel-products authority was applied on the basis that a sale exists where mutual assent is not wholly excluded. The assessments were therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether supply of bricks against permits issued under the control order constituted sales and was liable to sales tax.

Analysis: The supplies were made under a control order that regulated licensing, permits, price fixation, and compliance with directions, but it did not eliminate all contractual freedom. The parties remained free to ? no, avoid non-English. The parties remained free to decide matters such as date and place of delivery, mode and time of payment, and transportation arrangements. The earlier authority on controlled supplies was distinguished on facts, and the later authority concerning steel products was treated as governing, because a sale exists where the essential elements of contract are present and mutual assent is not wholly excluded.

Conclusion: The transactions were sales and were liable to sales tax; the challenge to the assessments failed.

---