BRITISH BANK FOR FOREIGN TRADE LD. v.
         NOVINEX LD
Contract--Conession--Repeat orders"--Undertake to cover you with
  "an agreed commission on any other business transacted with your
  "friends"  In consideration you "to put us in direct touch with
  "your friends"--Consideration executed--Contract enforceable--
  attibutable or not to the introduction.
  clients of the plaintiffs 20,000 oilskin suits.  In that letter dated
 December 9, 1946, the defendants wrote: "We confirm that
 "we have agreed to cover you on this transaction with a com-
 "mission of 4d. per oilskin suit . . . . We also undertake to
 "cover you with an agreed commission on any other business
 "transacted with your friends. In return for this you are to
 "put us in direct contact with your friends." The plaintiffs
 put the defendanta in direct contact with their friends--the
 P. and G. Trading Co. Ld. In August 1947 tbe defendants
 bought from P. and G. Trading Co. Ld. by two transactions
 1,000 and 20,000 oilskin suits--the second transaction not arising
 directly from the introduction of the plaintiffs, but from the
 defendants having seen an advertisement in a newspaper.
  The plaintiffs claimed commission on these two transactions,
 but the defendents denied liability to pay confirmation on either,
 on the ground that there was no legally enforceable bargain
 arising under the terms of the letter of December 9, 1946 the
 agreement  being to pay commission to be agreed upon and no
 such commision having been agreed. With regard to the second
 transaction the defendants also claimed that they were not liable
 to pay commission on the ground that the transaction did not
 arise from the plaintiffs' introduction. The trial judge accepted
 both submissions.
"a contract, in default" of fagreement, a reasonable sum is
"to be paid."
 But the court held that in applying that law, there was no
 was rendered was labour and that, as here, where the service
 not apply to all follow-up or repeat transaction.  And they
 made a declaration that the defendants were liable to pay a
 reasonable commission on the value of any transaction between
 the defendants and the P. and G. Trading Co. Ltd., whether in
 oilskins suits or other commodities, and they ordered the defendants
 to pay to the plaintiffs a commission of 1/4d. per oilskin suit.
APPEAL from a judgment of Denning J.
By a letter to the Plaintiffs dated Decemeber 9, 1946 signed
By one Vischer, a director of the defendant company, it was
agreed that the defendants were willing to buy from clients
" We confirm that we have agreed to cover you on this
"transaction with a commission of 4d. per oilskin suit
" amount would be payable to you after settlement with
your buyers. We also undertake to cover you with an
" agreed commission on any other business transacted with
" your friends.  In return for this you are to put us in direct
"contact with your friends."  The Plaintiffs put the defendants
in direct touch with the plaintiffs' friends, Messrs Pritchard
and Gee Trading Co. Ld., who were to sell the oilskin suits.
There was a dispute as to the payment of the commission
in September, 1947.  In January, 1948, the plaintiffs asked
for details of the business done by the defendants with
Masrs. Pritchard and Gee Trading Co. Ld during 1947, and
suggested that they "should now meet together to agree
"the commission to be paid to us thereon."  The defendants
repudiated liability, and the plaintiffs sued the defendants for
a reasonable commission on any business subsequent to the
that the defendants were liable to pay a commission of
transactions, or, alternatively, 4d. per suit. They asked for
damages for breach of contract.  The defendants admitted
linked with the original transaction, they admitted liability
to pay commission.  There were two other transactions in
August 1947 : (1.) the defendants bought 1,000 oilskin suits
from Messrs. Pritchard and Gee Trading Co. Ld., at a price
of 5s. 6d. per suit--#275; and (2.) 20,000 oiIskin suits at a
price of #5,000.
  The defendants denied liability to pay commision on the
transaction first on the ground that there was no legally
enforceable bargain arising under the terms of the letter of
December 9, 1946, the agreement being to pay commission
to be agred upon and no such commision having been agreed.
  Secondly, as to the second fftransaction, the defendants said
that it was only an agreement to pay commission arising
directly  from  the  introduction by the plaintiffs of Messrs.
Pritchard and Gee Trading Co. Ld., and they contended and
established that the second and largest transaction arose from
an advertisement in "The Times" newspaper. Denning J.
accepted  both  submissions  and gave judgement for the
defendants. The plaintiffs appealed.
  Quintin Hogg for the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are entitled
to commission under the contract contained in the letter of
December 9, 1946, on the two transactions, since the contract
was no longer executory: the plaintiff had put the defendants
in direct contact with their friends, Pritchard and Gee
Trading Co. Ld., and the court will assess the commission.
See Foley Classique Coaches Ld. (1) where there was was an
arbitration clause, but that was immaterial.  In Hillas & Co.
Ld. v Arcos Ld (2), the House of Lords stated that they
had not laid down universal principles of construction in
May & Butcher v the King (3), and that each case must be
decided on the construction to the particular document.
The only general principle seems to be to examine the facts
and, if the parties have agreed that remuneration has to be
paid and that has to be agreed, then there is an enforceable
contract; but if the parties have stipulated nothing at all on
this matter, then the contract is void for uncertainty.  In
May & Butcher v The King (3), the alleged contract was
executory.  Once there has been an executed consideration
there must be a contract to pay a reasonable price.  Scammell
& Nephew Ld. v H. C. & J. G. Ouston (4) was decided on
facts which render it if no use for the decision in this case.
By s. 8 of the Sale of Goods Act: "The price in a contract