SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2804, 23 June 1916, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CASH REGISTER CASE

ALLEGED REPUDIATION OF

A CONTRACT

DAMAGES AWARDED

The case of the National Cash Register Co., Ltd;, against Messrs. CM. Ross and Co., of Palmerston North, for JJI2OB for alleged breach of contract was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice, and a special-jury, of which Mr. Howard Reid was foreman.

Mr. T. Neave appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. T. Young for defendants, who ■counter-claimed for .£l2O, being the amount of their deposit on the alleged purchase of ten cash registers, together with interest thereon.

The case for the defence was continued with the evidence,of. "'.'.•

Chas. Macintosh Ross, ' who said he traded as draper and furnisher, under the style of C. 'M. Ross and Co., Ltd., employing thirty-five to forty assistants. He had a conversation with Sandberg, the agent for' the Cash Register Co., prior to June. 9, when a formal appointment was made, at which his accountant (Mr. Donaldson) and witness were present. Cash registers wore: discussed, and Sandberg; stated that Milne andChoyce, of Auckland, had installed a complete system, and other firms, Kirkcaldic's, the Economic, and Veitch and Allan had some of his company's regis-, ters in use, and contemplated putting in a complete system.' Witness expressed surprise that Mr. Allan had been converted to their favour, as from conversations he had had with Mr. Allan, witness understood Veitch' and Allan were opposed to their .general use. Sandberg represented there would be a saving of 25 per cent, by his,adopting cash registers. In reply to his remark,, Sandberg said their business was run on a profit ot 30 per cent., and from that he understood their profits were not excessive. Ihe order for the machines was then given, terms being cash on delivery, or all cash, paid in part or in whole to be subject to 5 per cent, discount; or twelve months' credit. He said he would probably pay cash, but would await the ar-' rival of the machines. . That was the oral arrangement as to terms. Sandberg said that if the order was not placed before June 15 an advance of something like 15 per cent, would be mado on the. price of the machines. Subse. quently he saw an agent purporting to represent the National Cash Register Co., and after stating that his firm had ordered cash registers, this agent wanted an order for the firm's Levin branch. I his was at the end of June,'and he wrote next day, June 30, saying that-he had been-offered a cash register at the price ruling prior to June 15. He wrote to the company about this. On Juno 16 he wrote, cancelling tho order, and vi r correspondence and the sending of Mr. ~ Donaldson to see Milne and C'hoyces, he finally cancelled the order on July 27. He admitted that -he had precipitately given the order, his hands had been forced by the threatened' advance, _and he had been misled as to the suitability of the cash registers'for his business. He told Mr. Bennett all. this at an interview when he called to ' inquire why the order was cancelled. ' . To Mr. Neaye:.Mr..Ross said the cash register failed to' communicate with the oiface, and every assistant had to .be a easlnei, whereas the beat axslslants nr saleman or women were the worst cashiers. lhe-Lamson .system centralised control,allcash gomg the office. He admitted that the.cash register'system was quicker than their present system, .but not.as good or as .suitable to'their business! as the tube system.' To Hrs Honour: He-was not led to-be-lieve that the cash: register; system would communicate with'-the office." ■,It was detective m.that;:respect. : C : :yßetweenVtlio time of his.-;ordeK.aii(l its;'caiicelkfton. he had seen the->Lai|ls6ii Company's' representative,.-; and :','he '^as '; coiivinced that SandbergX'.rep'i'Bsentnttoii was-"not accurate, thate'ity firms we're dieplacin" the-tube cash--system .of. the Lahison'. Co. for the cash; register system.' SandIu r ? J ll " 1 6aitl on leaving with the order that he hoped to conclude an l order next day with KirkcaldieV for a complete system such as he'had. placed with Ross and Co. He had, however,, no more rea-' son to doubt that statement than any other statement of Sandberg's about cash ■registers, . - .' ... . •

loMr.' Neave: •He •" now knew that handoergs statements.about the prospective business on the. same lines with Veitch and Allan and George and Kers. ley were untrue. His' firm had concluded art order to install.the Ijimson Co.'s system, and the representative of that Company- had agreed to refund their deposit if they could not recover it; and that company also nnder,ook to pay some of .the..costs,of any subsequent-liti-gation. That offer was made "on the sa,me day and accepted, on which he cancelled the order-seven davs after it was.,given—to the National Cash Ke°is. ter Co.'.? . '.•'■.•-■' •.. . • D

_ the agreement read to;'the Court' between Koss and Co: and the". Lamson Co'Stipulated-that the latter would pay half the damages of any action at law by thei.Casli Register, Co. against defend, ai/ts. ;, ,

I , l ?His Honour: He. did that the.order was given, and'did not question the terms given. ■ '. To.Mr. Young: The cash registers were of no. hot accept them as a present.' He did not like .Sandberg's demeanour,' and Saiidberg said lie was a German, "lie t'airlv inquired-into the cash register system up to June 30,. and kept-an open mind. The Laiuson contract signed on the' Kith provided for a 'non-confirmation if the order.if,he were satisfied thatj the ea-h registers would-be ineffective.

Sidney Kirkcaldie, director of K'irlccaldie and Stains. Ltd., said 1 be bad n,ed cash. registers for two or three months, but found them unsuitable to bis company's busiuess. He did not believe the Cash Register Company would sell any machines unless' they had canvassers. The system they bad centralised' the 'cash, from all corners of his building.. Their L.'uiSDii system was supplemented bv an "0.K." system, which was procured from the Cash Register Company. By it communication- was made to the office for credit accounts.

William Allan, of Veitch and Allan, said he had three cash registers in his business, and also the Lamson system.'He had not contemplated putting \n cash registers to supplant the lamson i-vstem. Cash registers would not suit bis" business at all; besides, he did not like- them. H<; installed three cash registers to supplement the tube system, and they worked vol I }' well.

H. W. Korsley, of the Economic, said they had the Lnnuon . system in their premises', nnd they hart three cash registers where quicker change was required; but the cash register was not suitable ns a system to n business that necessitated centra!'control of the cash tikings. To Mr. Neave: His firm hnd considered installing the cash register as a system in new premises, but, as new premises wore suspended nothing was done, andhe doubted if they would have decided on cash registers if they had. Jiotert Donaldson, accountant to Messrs. (\ M. Eoss and Co., Ltd., said Sir. Sandlierg first approached him about cash registers. They bought ono cash register for the haberdashery department, twelve months before the order for ten was given.-. He corroborated Mr. Ross's evidence as to tho representations made Ly Mr. Sandhorg, who also, said Milne and Clioyce's system was working- satisfactorily. He visited Auckland himself, examined Milne and Clioyce's stores,' and came to the conclusion that the system as a system was defective . unless combined with a telephone system connected between salesman and office. Tt »as that which made the, system used by Milne and Choree a success; but they had no electric power in Palmerstori, and to institute it in Eoss and would menu extra expense. Snndborg assured them that there would Lc a 75 per cent, saving in labour. To His Jloiiom: Ho came to the conclusion soon after the order-within a week—that the machines were r.o use to them. His Honour: 'After you had seen the Lamson Company's agent? Witness: Yes; bur suspicions ivpre then confirmed; and we cancelled the order.

To Mr. Neave: Butchers and grocers use cash registers in Pnluierston North— mostly small businesses. He did not decry, the machine as a machine. The order was given without due consideration. Sandberg "got them down" over the order. In cancelling the order ho thought there was oothing wrong in what f.!. M. Ross and Co. had done.

His Honour: Is that not a. low state of commercial morality? If a London merchant gave his word in a transaction, and no writing, he would stand up to his word even at his own grievious loss. Mr. Young, in- reviewing the evidence, emphasised the point that representations were made to Ross ami Co. that other large drapery firms were about to install cash registers as a system as cash and has elapsed and no draper has adopted cash registers as a system as cab. and credit; and no draper can be found that favoured the cash register system. Mr. Koss found that what he had ordered, through Mr. Sniidberg's representations, would not suit his business, ho cancelled tho order; but plaintiffs 'rushed" to use their own word as cabled, said Mr. loung, this order, and declined to cancel the order, although only one week had elapsed. A cable could have been sent cancelling the order. His client had offered to pay the cost of such u cablegram, and pay all the expenses the Cush Uegister Company had been put :o, provided t.ho order was cancelled. What could his clients do but refuse the goods? They were no good to him, ami whatever tho result tney belonged to the Cash Register Company. Mr. Neave said the contract was entered into on June !), and on JunG to' the contract was repudiated, and it was due to the representative of the Lamson Company, a rival system', that the order was cancelled... It was then that Mr. Koss discovered that Sandberg had deceived him as to what the cash registers would do.. Koss and Co. had a cash register in use for twelve months, and it had giveii them entire satisfaction. Mr. Koss, being a hard-headed, cautious Scotsman, was not likely to be misled by Mr. SandLerg. . Business could not be carried on if an'order was ( given one day and cancelled a few days later. What h'a clients' claimed was damages for repudiation of contract, and they were entitled to .'them.

His Honour, in addressing the jury, said that they .were the judges o* the facts, and they, too, had to determine what was honourable in business relations... Sir Kobert Stout reviewed the evidence and correspondence, and noted the varied defences set up by defendants. He pointed out that Lnmson's man came between the plaintiff's and the defendants and induced the latter to cancel their contract in favour of Lanison's system. Then they discovered the defects of the cash register, and found it was income plete and unsuitable. Could the jury find that'this was an honest repudiation of a contract? As to damages, that would bs the difference between what the rejected . machines were sold at and what they, could be sold ut ito-day. If they could believe.the evidence that these machines were useless .without alteration, 'then they would have to assess damages, 'i'hey could not give more than *10S6 in damages, but how. little or how much depended upon themselves, and their own judgment. That was what they, had to decide, and he left tho issue with them. In reply to the 'foreman of the jury, His Honour said that if they, could not agree to. a .unanimous verdict after 'thrsn -hours' consideration; then a threefourths' verdict would suffice. After an absence of two hours (he jury returned to court at-, G. 35 p.m. They awarded the plaintiffs £W damages, and costs according to scale, with .£6 '6s. for extra day. Leave to move for a new n trial was granted on Aft-. T. Young's application.