TRANSACTION IN TIN PLATES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 266, 4 August 1921, Page 5

TRANSACTION IN TIN PLATES

DELIVERY NOT ACCEPTED. Y'esterday afternoon Mr. E. Page, S.M., hoard the civil case of David A. Hamilton and Co., Ltd. (in liquidation), against the Marlborough Fruit Packing and Preservnig Company, Ltd., to recover £175 15s. Gd. Mr. H. E. Evans appeared for the plaintiffs arid Mr. D. M. Findlay for the defendante.

It was set out in the statement of claim that on Juno 11, 1920, a contract was made for the sale of 25 boxes of tinplates to the defendant company at £7 net per ton, terms sight draft; and that on March 22 last the defendants refused to take delivery and dishonoured the draft. Alternatively tho plaintiffs claimed ns a measure of damage the difference between tho contract price and tho price current, or market price, when the defendants should luive taken delivery of tho gcods, viz., £ll2 10,s. The contact stipulated for delivery "about" January, while delivery was actually tendered on March 22, and defendants contended that delivery was unduly delayed, and that they were justified in refusing to accept the goods. For the plaintiffs it was urged that there was no unduo delay; tho contract was for delivery "about" January, nnd delivery about the middle of March did not amount to undue delay It was further urged on behalf of plaintiffs that, even If it wore held that there had been delay, that delnr was caused by strikes in tho United States, and there wm a provision in tho contract which relieved the plaintiffs of any liability for delay in delivery. After hearing evidence the Magistrate reserved his decision.