CITY MILK SUPPLY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 236, 30 June 1920, Page 3

CITY MILK SUPPLY

A TEST CASE WHERE DELIVERY SHOULD - , BE MADE : . Eeserved judgment was delivered yesterI. day by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in thfccaso ofthe Oity l Milk-Department'v. No. 1 Muni- , / cipal Milk Distributing Co., Ltd,, ", in ■ re--: spcct to-.the deUyery'"of mflfc.-toflfck J:-. [. Darling,' Kelburn.' ■" '. V. ■ The-Magistrate said that (he ;decision;dc-; l : ponded: upon- tho const reel ion : td*6o' piaceu. on lOlauje 6 of' (he: asrcemcnt^md^e• between:'the, drfondant and the Gity; Cor- . poratiori: By '.the ckuse It 'was: agreed • : that thedefendant "shall sell and deliver ■ milk to. • retail 'customers, requiring .tho same" at the prices thereto specified. It ( was: contended on. behalf of the defendant that in the absence of-'any specific provision as to tho manner or place of delivery, the question of delivery was left open, and was intended to bccome ;a matter of ; bargain between -'tho defendant and; each individual customer. "I have come to-: tho. conclusion," . remarked His Worship,: "that the contract entered into by thi defendant to deliver milk imposes 0/ pfptvter obligation than that 6ug-, gested. - XooMnj at' the whole agreement it seems to me tbat ; the defendant undertakes to effect' such "reasonable delivery of. milk as shall bo required by customers. -It is-'for■/tho defendant> to deliver the milk: arid- hot for the customer, to, come and fetch-the, milli.. Tho whole agreement seems to me to be based -on this proposition." ..The price At which the do- : fondant- was. entitled to solj the milk. to retail customers seemed to lie .iinendofi to pay. ,the' defendant for - delivering -the. milk to the promiFCS of the purchasers. : With reference to the: particular manner, of idclivery tho Magistrate held that there was an', obligation on the defendant to tender'delivery a-t the rcsidenc? of the Durohaser. "The purchaser must; bo ready to receive tlio milk, and'if his household is not'mid he must' make' suitable provt- : sifin for accepting delivery of the,milk. 1 rto not think -that -tho obligation the rte,'fendnnt has undertaken is discharged by "olinring to deliver the milk at the front pate of-the purchaser's premises. As for ■tho charge of refusing; to deliver to Mr. 'Darling, the Magistrate thought that de> -fendant had committed a, breach of clause S It was argued oh:-behalf of the dc.fendiint. that the/price;received was, not sufficiently high to enablo :him 'to give delivery of tho tho residoncefl of /'purchasers. The - f,*LCt that the contract had proved -unprofitable' to the defendant was not an answer to a'charge based on a breach of. the contract. Defendant waR convicted and a nominal penalty imposed, because (lie .■ proceedings were in the uature of a test case.. Defendant was fined £1 and costs totalling £3:55. ' *: