[252]. 33 L. T., N. S., 561.
[253]. This seems the result of the cases Grizewood v. Blane, 11 C. B., 526; Ex parte Marnham, 30 L. J., Bkpcy., 3.
[254]. 4 T. L. R., 326.
[255]. 17 C. S. C., 466.
[256]. “The evidence of Willis seems to make it clear that the customer had this option, though this feature of the case was clearer in Howat’s case (post). It does not appear whether the accounts were closed by Shaw or by defendant’s instructions, but this does not seem to affect the argument.”
[257]. 30 L. J. Bkpcy. 3.
[258]. Since the above was written the case of Stevens v. Universal Stock Exchange has been reported, 40 W.R. 494; in that case, however, it does not appear that the printed conditions gave the customer the option to treat the transactions as difference bargains.
[259]. See the Report of the Commissioners, p. 274, No. 6949.
[260]. See Report of 1878, at p. 29.
[261]. 4 Q. B. D. at p. 696.