Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DISPUTE OVER SANDALS

CHRISTCHURCH IMPORTER’S CLAIM. A claim for 13s. was made by Perry and Son, boot and shoe importers, of Christchurch, in _ the Magistrate’s Court yesterday against James Alexander Mason, a bootmaker, of Wellington, on the ground that two dozen pairs of Charleston sandals delivered to the latter had not been paid for. Mason coun-ter-claimed £6 for alleged loss of profit over the transaction. Mr. W. P. Shorland, who represented Perry and Son, said that the sandals were sold to Mason after he had been shown some samples of them. Ten days after taking delivery ho wrote, complaining that some of tho samples were broken and the others defective. The plaintiffs offered to replace those broken, but tho defendant did not take advantage of this offer. Between 25,000 and 30,000 pairs of sandals had been sold in New Zealand by the plaintiffs without complaint. The sandals supplied to Mason were identical with the sample. Evidence was called along those lines. ’l’be defence was that the sample was of better quality than tho sandals supplied. Five pairs were defective, and the others were on the point of breaking. The defendant returned the sandals through a forwarding agency, but they were subsequently returned to him. Mason considered that his trade would be affected if he retained the goods and sold them to his customers. Mr. A. M. Cousins, who represented Mason, said that if the Court found that five pairs of tho sandals were defective then Perry and Sou would have to take the lot back. The Magistrate (Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) said that ho thought the offer of Perry and Son to replace the broken sandals was a very fair one under tho circumstances. They were entitled to succeed, however, only for the goods which complied with tho sample. The price of the five faulty pairs, with the defendant’s profit, would be deducted from the claim. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the remainder, <£lo 19s. 6d. The counter-claim was struck out.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19280229.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
334

DISPUTE OVER SANDALS Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 5

DISPUTE OVER SANDALS Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert