Lord Wrenbury. - For brevity the plaintiffs are in the following judgment referred to as the buyer and the defend ant as the seller. This is the buyer's action for damages for breach of a contract for the sale of sugar. He claims repayment of Rs. 7,500, which he paid as an advance on the price of the goods, and damages for non-delivery of the goods sold. The question in the case, and the only question is contract or no contract. The trial Judge held that there was no contract. Two of the Judges in the Supreme Court were for affirming his decision, but were not agreed on the grounds which they assigned for that con clusion. One held that there was a con tract, but that the buyer was estopped from relying upon it" the other that there was no contract and that no question of estoppel arose. The Chief Justice, on the contrary, held that there was a concluded, contract, and was unable to see how there could be any doubt in the case. Their Lordships are of the same opinion as the Chief Justice. For the decision of the case there is no need to travel beyond the very elementary proposition of law that a contract is con cluded when in the mind of each con tracting party there is a consensus ad idem, and that a modification or revocation of the contract requires a like consensus. The facts lie in a very small compass. On the 16th February, 1923, Kandappa Pillai, a broker, was instructed by the buyer to arrange for him a purchase of sugar. The authority of the broker is not in dispute. He went on that day to the seller, arranged with him for the purchase of 1,500 bags at Rs. 37.50 per bag, and gave him a cheque for Rs. 7,500 as an advance, at the rate of Rs. 5 per bag. The seller cashed the cheque the same day. He signed and gave the broker the docu ment D. 1, which was the seller's memo randum of the contract and acknowledg ment of the receipt of the Rs. 7,500. That document is as follows :- 16-2-1923 The receipt re-written and granted to T.A.J. Noorbhai by S.P.L.K.R. Karup pan Chetty. I acknowledge receipt of a sum of Rs. He signed and gave the broker the docu ment D. 1, which was the seller's memo randum of the contract and acknowledg ment of the receipt of the Rs. 7,500. That document is as follows :- 16-2-1923 The receipt re-written and granted to T.A.J. Noorbhai by S.P.L.K.R. Karup pan Chetty. I acknowledge receipt of a sum of Rs. 7,500 by Chartered Bank Cheque as advance for the sale to you of 150 tons of Java Sugar at Rs. 37'50 per bag C. I. F. to be delivered to you as follows :- 50 tons as February shipment, 50 tons as March shipment, 50 tons as April shipment in terms of the conditions of the Indent entered into by me with Messrs. Curson and Co. On the arrival of each shipment the entire value should be paid and delivery taken. (Sd.) S.P.L.K.R. KARUPPAN CHETTY. There was, therefore, a contract signed by the defendant, the seller, and part pay ment made by the plaintiff's, the buyer. There was a concluded contract between the parties. The broker gave D. 1, to the buyer on the same 16th February, and it seems to have remained in his possession for three days, until the 19th February. On the 19th February the broker took D. 1 back to the seller to have some words added as to delivery by "weighing without slackage and moisture, as usual" (upon which nothing turns). The words were added and signed by the seller and the broker took the document back again and handed it to the buyer. Whether it reached the buyer's hands until after the 20th February when he wrote the letter of that date next stated, does not appear. On the 20th February the buyer wrote the letter D. 2, which is as follows :- Keyser Street, Colombo. 20th February, 1923. S. P. L. K. R. Karuppan Chetty, Esq., Colombo. Dear Sir, With reference to the contract purchas ing from you 1,500 bags Java sugar (Fe bruary, March and April shipment of 500 bags monthly), at Rs. 34 per bag ex. bond through broker, Kandappa, we have to in form you that although we made an ad vance of Rs. 7,500 by C. B. Cheque dated 16-2-23 towards the contract, we have not yet received the contract signed by you. 34 per bag ex. bond through broker, Kandappa, we have to in form you that although we made an ad vance of Rs. 7,500 by C. B. Cheque dated 16-2-23 towards the contract, we have not yet received the contract signed by you. We would, therefore, ask you to send the contract duly signed by you without any further delay, to avoid unnecessary steps being taken on the matter. Yours faithfully, (Sd.) T. A. J. NOORBHAI and Co. P. S. - We are daily enquiring from broker re delay of the contract, and in re ply he says that he was told by your Manager that you are gone to estate and expected to-day. Therefore we write you now this letter. In this letter the buyer states that the price was Rs. 34 per bag. It was not. It was Rs. 37'50. Whether the buyer had forgotten the price and, not having D. 1 before him at the moment, made this statement innocently (which is improb able), or whether he intentionally stated a lower price makes, in their Lordships' opinion, no difference. The seller prompt ly corrected him by his letter of the 2lst February, D. 3, in which he says, and correctly, that the contract price is Rs. 37'50. There is no possible question of estoppel. The misstatement which the buyer made was not acted upon by the seller in the faith that it was accurate. He knew it was not accurate, and immediately said so. But the buyer's letter of the 20th Fe bruary, the sailer says, was a repudiation. Their Lordships find in it no trace of re pudiation. It speaks of "the contract" (naming, it is true, an erroneous price) states that the buyer has made an ad vance of Rs. 7,500 towards the contract, and says that the buyer has "not yet re ceived the contract signed by you" (which was not the fact, unless "the contract" means D. 1, with the additional words at the end which possibly had not yet reach ed his hands). There was, in their Lord ships' opinion, no repudiation. But, further, if that letter can be read as a repudiation by the buyer, he as one of the parties to the contract could not avoid it of his own mere motion. The sel ler might either accept or reject the buyer's attempt to revoke it. There was, in their Lord ships' opinion, no repudiation. But, further, if that letter can be read as a repudiation by the buyer, he as one of the parties to the contract could not avoid it of his own mere motion. The sel ler might either accept or reject the buyer's attempt to revoke it. The seller promptly replied on the 21st February, insisting on the contract and requiring the buyer to send the contract duly signed by the buyer. There was no consensus ad idem to a revocation. On the 23rd February the buyer wrote again asking for ''the contract signed by you." This really makes an end of the case. The fall in the price of sugar, which the seller suggests was the incentive to the buyer to seek to got out of the contract to buy at Rs. 37'50, was followed by a rise, which made it to be the sailer's in terest to seek in his turn to say there was no contract. On the 22nd March the seller returned the Rs. 7,500 and wrote that he was disposing of the goods. On the same 22nd March the buyer sent the seller's cheque back again and insist ed on the contract. The subsequent letters add nothing which in any way affects the question at issue. In April the first consignment of the sugar arrived. The buyer asked for delivery, the seller refused to give it, and on the 21st April this action was commenced. From that which has been stated it re sults that the buyer is entitled to recover. The appeal succeeds. There must be judgment for the plaintiffs for the Rs. 7,500 which they have paid and for damages. The case must go back to the District Court to assess the damages. The plain tiffs must have their costs in the Courts below and before this tribunal. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. Appeal allowed.