A SHIPMENT FROM NORWAY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 272, 11 August 1921, Page 6

A SHIPMENT FROM NORWAY

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS NOT CARRIED OUT Breach of contract was alleged by the plaintiffs in a case which was determined by the Acting-Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Sim) in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was one in which Henry Oleen and Co. Proprietary Ltd., sued for 41322 2s. Bd. and interest as damages from Thompson Brothers Ltd. Tho facts of the case were that ths defendants gave to the plaintiffs’ representative in Wellington, in August, 1919, an order for 25 cases of Norwegian smoked sild at the price of 82s. per case, and in September, another order for 50 cases of the same goods at 81s. per case. These orders ’were not accepted until January, 1920, when the plaintiff sent to the defendant a written acceptance of each order, and obtained the signature of the defendant to a duplicate of each acceptance. Tho goods were shipped from Norway to Sydney in April, 1920, and on arrival there were forwarded to Wellington by the steamer Ulimaroa. A draft for the price of ths goods was presented to the defendant on July 6, and again a few days later. The defendant on each occasion refused to honour the draft. The goods were thereupon landed and bonded by the Bank of New Zealand as agent for the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to recover the sum of 4’322 2s. Bd. and interest as damages for breach of contract. In his judgment, His Honour said: "There appears to have boon only one bill of lading, and that was not produced at the hearing, far the reason, it was said, that it had been given up to the shipowner when the goods were landed in Wellington. There was no evidence as to the contents or effect of this bill of lading, and it may have been in respect of the 75 cases agreed to be sold to the defendant, or in respect of the whole shipment of sild carried for the plaintiff on that particular voyage from Norway to Sydney. As, however, there was only one bill, of lading it is clear that the' plaintiff company did not make, as it was bound to do, a separate contract of affreightment in respect of each parcel of sild agreed to be sold to the defendant. The position appears to be the same in connection with the insurance No nolicy of insurance was produced at the hearing. What was produced was a certificate. . . T assume in favour of the plaintiff that this certificate. can be- treated as being m effect a nolicv of insurance. But obtaining such a 'noli?y was not a compliance with the plaintiff’s obligations under its contracts with the defendant. There ought to have been at least a separate policy in respect of the goods shipped for tho defendant, if not a separate policy, in respect of each parcel of goods. T n^a (l of procuring such a policy «ie Po ntiff included in one policy the two lots of goods shipped for the defendant with other cases of similar goocl clear, therefore. Hint the plaintiff company failed to carry out its obligations under the contracts in connection with at least two matters, namely, P T< £'] r ’ » proper contracts of affreightment for the carriage of the goods from Norway to Sydney. «nd arranging for proper insurance of such goods on that voyage. n. failure is a complete answer to the p an tiff’s claim to recover damages, and it r to consider any of the other questions rateed l,v Mr. Gray on behalf of the defendant.” . . Tndrnnent was accordingly given for the defendant. Mr. T. Near* anneared f