Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/460

444 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. With regard to the word with which every such order begins, to wit, " Buy " or " Sell," the following custom is established. The word " buy " or " sell," as used in an order in the regular form given to a stockbroker who is a member of a Stock Exchange, is taken to mean " contract to buy " or " contract to sell ^ on the Stock Exchange of which you are a member ^ according to its rules and customs." With regard to the words " for me and at my risk " or " for my account and risk," which follow the word " buy " or " sell " in an order in the regular form, their meaning and the customs which apply to them are as follows. 1. The words "for me" or "for my account" mean that the contract the stockbroker is directed to make is to be made for and on behalf of the customer. 2. The words " at my risk " have the customary significance that the customer assumes the risk of any failure to perform on the part of the stockbroker or stockbrokers with whom his stock- broker contracts, and that he does not require the latter to guaran- tee in any way that the contract or contracts which he makes will be performed by the stockbroker or stockbrokers with whom he contracts. If these words are omitted in an order, as they may be, they are implied by force of custom. With regard to the kind of contract the stockbroker is to make, the following custom has been established. If an order in the regular form does not state a particular de- livery for which the securities are (to be contracted) to be bought ments of stockbrokers are to be interpreted by the customs of their business are unsatisfactory, it is absolutely clear that an order in the regular form will receive its customary significance. The law is clear that where z. general authority to buy or to sell personal property is given without restrictions to a person engaged in a particular trade, it will be interpreted according to the customs of that trade ; Mechem on Agency, §§ 362, 940, 946, 948 ; for a large collection of cases on the interpretation of the en- gagements of stockbrokers according to custom and an intelligent discussion of this question, see Dos Passes, Chap. VII. p. 341. See also Harris v. Tumbridge, 83 N. Y. 92, aff. 8 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 291 ; Horton v. Morgan, 19 N. Y. 170; Whitehouse v. Moore, 13 Abb. Pr. Rep. (N. Y.) 142; Skiff z/. Stoddard, 21 Law Rep. Ann. 102, on p. 112; cf. also Daylight Burner Co. z/. Odlin, 51 N. H. 56; Putnam z/. French, 53 Vt. 402. ^ See ante, page 440, note i. 2 For two cases illustrating the nature and extent of this custom, see Rosenstock v. Tormey, 32 Md. 169; and Porter v. Wormser,- 94 N. Y. 341; see also Dos Passes, 206-212.