SHINGLE AND SAND

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 123, 21 November 1932, Page 10

SHINGLE AND SAND

CARTAGE OF SUPPLIES

DAMAGES NOT PROVED

Reserved judgment was delivered in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr. Justice Blair on a twofold claim by the Cunningham Carrying Co., Ltd., cartage contractors, against Eiver Shingle and Sand, Ltd., shingle, sand, and metal dealers. The first claim was for £1360 15s 7d for work done, interest, etc., but exeect for an amount of approximately £100 there was no dispute on this head. The second branch of the claim \vas for £4500 damages for rescission of a contract between the parties. In September, 1930, the parties entered into an agreement under which the Cunningham Carrying Co., Ltd., received the exclusive right for seven years of the delivery of the shingle, sand, and metal dealt with by the defendant. As part of the agreement, the plain tiff agreed to purchase the defendant's fleet of 21 motor-trucks and spare parts for £4250. It was alleged that this year the defendant had made default in payment of moneys payable to the plaintiff, such, defaults continuing up to' 6th May, when the plaintiff by letters rescinded the contract. The defence was a denial of any breach of contract. It was pleaded that the defendant having accepted and agreed to the plaintiff's rescission or repudiation, the contract had been .dissolved by mutual consent and the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for the loss of the contract.

Mr. Justice Blair held that the abrogation of the contract was not the voluntary act of the Shingle Company, but was due entirely to the fact that the schedule prices for carting eliminated the possibility of the Shingle Company carrying on its business under present conditions. In the result his Honour found that the Carrying, Company had not proved any damages in respect of the_ abrogation of the contract. The plaintiff company -was entitled to judgment for the amount of its overdue carting accounts, but., credit against these would have to be given for the' instalments paid on the trucks in accordance with the deed.

At the hearing of the case Mr. IV C. Spratt appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. E. E. Harding for the defendant.