Sale contract requires clear acceptance of essential terms; a broker is not personally liable for breach absent independent responsibility.

A contract of sale is concluded only when offer and acceptance extend to the essential terms, including price; here, the evidence did not show a clear consensus, the broker's account conflicted with his pleadings, and the plaintiff's proof was hearsay, so no binding sale contract was established against either principal. A broker who merely negotiates between parties does not incur personal liability for non-performance absent fraud or an independent undertaking; on that basis, no personal liability attached to the broker. The plaintiff therefore failed to prove either a concluded contract or a basis for liability, and the suits failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a binding contract of sale between the plaintiff and the first defendant in each suit was established. (ii) Whether the broker was personally liable for the alleged breach of contract.

Issue (i): Whether a binding contract of sale between the plaintiff and the first defendant in each suit was established.

Analysis: A contract of sale requires offer and acceptance under Section 5 of the Sale of Goods Act. The evidence failed to show a clear consensus on the essential terms. The broker's account was inconsistent with his pleadings, the plaintiff's evidence was hearsay, and the rate communicated by the broker was not shown to have been accepted. The alleged instruction by one first defendant could not bind the other without proof of authority or any accepted offer on his behalf.

Conclusion: No binding contract of sale was proved against either first defendant.

Issue (ii): Whether the broker was personally liable for the alleged breach of contract.

Analysis: A broker is only a negotiator who brings parties together and ordinarily does not incur personal liability for non-performance of the contract. His role is to establish privity between the principals, not to undertake liability for breach, and no case of fraud or independent liability was made out.

Conclusion: The broker was not personally liable for the alleged breach.

Final Conclusion: As the plaintiff failed to prove a concluded contract and no personal liability attached to the broker, the appeals could not succeed and the suits failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract of sale is not concluded unless the essential terms, including price, are accepted, and a broker who merely negotiates the bargain does not become liable for breach in the absence of separate legal responsibility.

---