Implied contract for goods accepted and partly paid for sustains liability, while new appellate defence was rejected.

A contract may be inferred from conduct where goods are supplied on the supplier's own account, accepted by the buyer, partly paid for, and followed by repeated demands for payment; the buyer was therefore liable for the unpaid price despite initial dealings involving a third person. An appellate amendment that would introduce an entirely new defence and change the nature of the case was properly refused, and additional evidence sought only to support that new plea was also rejected. The decree for the supplier was maintained because the transaction created a binding liability and no procedural basis existed to reopen the defence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendants were liable to pay the price of the tobacco on the basis of an implied contract arising from the conduct of the parties, notwithstanding the role of a third person in the initial dealings; (ii) whether the defendants were entitled to amend the written statement and adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants were liable to pay the price of the tobacco on the basis of an implied contract arising from the conduct of the parties, notwithstanding the role of a third person in the initial dealings.

Analysis: The supply of tobacco was found to have been made by the plaintiff on its own account, the goods were accepted by the defendants, part payment was made to the plaintiff, and repeated demands for payment were addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants. The initial dealings with the third person did not alter the legal position because the decisive facts showed execution of the orders by the plaintiff and acceptance of the goods by the defendants as goods supplied by the plaintiff. The conduct of the parties established a direct contractual relationship in law.

Conclusion: The defendants were liable under an implied contract and the claim for the unpaid balance was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants were entitled to amend the written statement and adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The proposed amendment would have introduced an entirely new defence and altered the nature of the original case. The additional evidence was sought only to support that new plea. In the circumstances, the appellate court was justified in refusing both the amendment and the request to adduce further evidence.

Conclusion: The defendants were not entitled to amendment of the written statement or to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld because the transaction gave rise to a binding liability to pay the price, and no procedural ground warranted reopening the defence.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract may be inferred from the conduct of the parties where goods are supplied, accepted, and partly paid for on the supplier's own account, even if the initial negotiations involved a third person.

---