SUPREME COURT
TRADING CLAIM
| TRANSACTION IN FEATHER DUSTERS 111 the Supreme Court yesterday His Honour'Jlr. Justice Edwards heard Uie ease oi' Gibson and Paterson, Ltd., of Waugamii, against tho i r ni-jners' Co-oper-ative Wholesale Federation (N.Z.), Ltd., of Wellington. Mr. C. C. Hutton, of Wangnnni, appeared for plaintiff, and Jlr. :E. P. Hay for defendants. The statement of claim set out that on, November 1, 1018, plaintiff company eold to defendants fifty gross of ostrich feather dusters, terms c.i.f., duty paid Wellington. All articles so sold had been delivered lin accordance with the contract. The plaintiffs had received payment for all except 199 dozen, value i3S9 18s. !)d.. and therefore claimed for this amount with costs.
Tho defenoe was an admission of a contract, but defendants claimed that the goads should have been held by the plaintiff company and disposed of in its own name as vendor, and on its own responsibility to the various 'farmers' co-opera-tivo associations in the South Island. That in the second place the plaintiffcompany should have in its own liamo as vendor and on its own responsibility obtained aiid fulfilled orders from firms or companies apart from the associations, conditionally, however, on a commission being paid by the plaintiff company to the association in whose district any sale to such firm or company was effected, etich commission being 10 per cent. That defendant company should havo been allowed 2J per cent, on all sales. That defendant company should not in any event itself have been liable to take delivery of'or pay for the whole or any portion of the said goods. That tho plaintiff company in its own name had dulv obtained and fulfilled orders from the said association and from firms and companios apart therefrom, and obtained payment direct from such associations, firms, and companies, and otherwise observed the terms of the contract to the ex'ent of these positions of the said 'goods disposed of. The defendant company stated that with regard to the remainder of the goods not disposed of the plaintiff company wrongfully and in breach of the contract, forwarded such to defendant company, which repudiated liability or responsibility ..therefor. Tho defendant company denied that the sum of ,£389 18s. 9d. was due and owing. A further defence was that if a contract for sale was made, as alleged, one of the terms of such sale was that tho purchase price was to be paid only as the goods ivere sold and disposed of to, and paid for by, third parties, and in suoh instalments from time to timp. as corresponded with amounts realised by such sales to third parties, and as the claim represented the price of that portion of the said goods not yet disposed of to third parties, (he said sum was not yet due and payable by the defendant company to the plaintiff company: and, further, that all such sales to third parties were to be effected by the plaintiff company, and not by defendant company, vr-'ch had nevor at any time made any ati Tnufc to dispose of the goods or any part thereof. Aftor hearing the evidence of one witness for the defence, and the arguments of counsel, Tfis Honour reserved his decision.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19190826.2.6
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 283, 26 August 1919, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
537SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 283, 26 August 1919, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.