https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306181 Priority in date governed competing contracts for sale: the earlier enforceable agreement protected the prior purchaser, so the plaintiff could not enforce his later contract against the share already covered by that earlier bargain. The fact that the prior purchaser later took a smaller share on revised terms did not defeat his contractual priority, since he could waive part of his rights and vary the arrangement by mutual consent. A sale contract may also be enforceable by a representative-in-interest where personal qualities are immaterial and assignment is not barred, but a new assignment case could not be raised for the first time in second appeal. The issue whether the second purchaser was a transferee for value in good faith without notice was remanded for finding. en-us Sat, 10 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2023 11:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306181 Priority in date governed competing contracts for sale: the earlier enforceable agreement protected the prior purchaser, so the plaintiff could not enforce his later contract against the share already covered by that earlier bargain. The fact that the prior purchaser later took a smaller share on revised terms did not defeat his contractual priority, since he could waive part of his rights and vary the arrangement by mutual consent. A sale contract may also be enforceable by a representative-in-interest where personal qualities are immaterial and assignment is not barred, but a new assignment case could not be raised for the first time in second appeal. The issue whether the second purchaser was a transferee for value in good faith without notice was remanded for finding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 10 Jun 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306181