CONTRACT TO IMPORT FRUIT

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22515, 24 September 1938, Page 9

CONTRACT TO IMPORT FRUIT

* CLAIM ALLOWED BY MAGISTRATE DISTINCTION BETWEEN AGENT AND PRINCIPAL (PBESS ASSOCIATION TILIGIAItJ WELLINGTON, September 23. “The essential eleme.it of agency is to establish privity of contract between a principal and a third party, and it would seem that if an agent fails to do so either the Contract never comes into being, or the agent himself becomes the contracting party,” said Mr J. H. Luxford, S.M., in a reserved judgment in the case between Thompson Brothers, Ltd., and the New Zealand Trading Corporation, Ltd. The case related to fruit ordered from a Seattle firm,- forwarded in substitute form and sold by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendants, to whom plaintiffs looked for the reimbursement of any loss. The Magistrate said the law was clear that where a person professed to' contract as an agent, _ whether in writing or verbally, and it was shown that he was himself the principal and was acting on his own behalf, he was personally liable on the contract. The effect of this was that the Court was able to look at all the surrounding circumstances and determine from them whether the person purporting to contract as an agent did in fact so contract, or not, “In order to establish privity of contract between Groat and Company and the plaintiff, it was necessary for the defendant to submit the contract to Groat and Company for confirmation and completion. But the defendant did not do so. It merely ordered in its own name and paid for a quantity of citrus fruit, including the fruit ordered by plaintiff. When this fruit arrived in New Zealand defendant appropriated part of it to the plaintiff’s order.” The Magistrate found that defendant contracted as the principal, and gave judgment for £72 15s 6d, less £6 5s 8d paid into Court.