Action for Damages.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 295, 20 December 1901, Page 4

Action for Damages.

SiiKEP CASK. At Christchurch lust week a case of I special interest to shecpfarmers was dealt i with, Bober: Latter suing JJa.gety and Co. j ana 11. Gi'ouiue for £lSu damages for | non-delivery of sheep. Judgment was re- i served. The plaintiff's statement was • tint in November last year he agreed with 1 fidgety and Co.'s representative iu Napier to purenase iUUU two tooth ewes rn 11s .'id, bring the pick o! oUUO at Tutira station, j On srd JuiHjuvy he resold the ewes with others, but on tfih March he received inliiiiatioii iroiii JJaigetv and Co. that they ! weit: nut likely to come to iiaml. At tliat time tne ewes would have been worth 17s to ibs in Christchurch, and iiu assessed ills loss at Is per head. Daigely unit Co. had telegraphed that the ewes were not up to expectations, and he had replied that be uad sold them as a superior lot and the contract must be adhered to. We have not at hand tiie evidence for tiie defence, taken in Napier. In the case of Robert Latter v. Daigely ami Co. ami T. 11 Broome, counsel argued as follows .Ur .Stringer said the question of assessing damages rested on the circuiasi.aiiees at the port of delivery, and not on the market prices in Canterbury, as tlie jilaiiitin claimed. The contract was to deliver the ewes f.o.h. at Napier, and it was unreasonable to expect that the vendor should nominate the ship, lie (counsel) opmed that, plaintiff would not expect dermdant lo find a slop if there were none sailing.

.Ur Harper: Most certainly, we nil'l that view. Mr Stringer : I’m glad to know :t, as I venture to say that no merchant would think of making such an arrangement. It is contrary to law. Continuing, Mr Stringer said that “ f.0.h.” implied that the purchaser must nominate the ship required for the delivery of the goods. Unless il.is view were taken, there was no teunical reason why tiie ewes should mV. have been sent to Canternury, or u’i

any particular ship. The vendor vui; not respousihie for choosing the H p to deliver the goods he sold, under me delinitioii of “ f.0.h.” As to the can - ages, there could lie no dispute tuiicerniiig the application of the old common law piinciple, winch assessed according u Cue natural and direct, loss resulting to the purchaser. After lie had quoted law in support ol Ins definition of “ f.0.h.” counsel contended that there was nothing in the contract to show that U.e plaintiff required the ewes for Canterbury, or in fact lor any specific port, or purpose whatever. There was a market in Napier at which the plaintiff could have purchased sheep of a quality equal to those in dispute at a lower price Ilian ] he contracted to pay Dalgcty and Co. If Dalgcty and Co.’s failure to deliver Hie sheep had necessitated the plaintiff's buying sheep to replace them at a higher rate than lie was to pay for Dalgcty am! Co’s line, the plaintiff would be aide to claim as damages his extra expenses. This, however, would be shown to he unnecessary, and it would be shown that the sheep could have been replaced at a lower price in Napier. Counsel opposed the plaintiff s contention that it was specilied in the contract that the ewes should have been off the Tutira station. Plaintiff may, at his nave represented that the ewes were from the Tutira station, hut the contract did not specify this at all. Mr Slrmge: concluded by repeating his contention that the defendants could not reasonably lie expected to know whether Ur: plaintiff had not made a contract to send tiie sheep elsewhere than Canterbury and that sheep similar m quality to those contracted for were purchasable in February at an even lower cost than the contract price. Mr stringer then referred to tne evidence which had been 1 alien m Napier and put into Court. A number of witnesses, auctioneers, stock-dealers, and others, lestilied to the fact that there had been a fall in the price of sheep between November and February. At the end of February sheep of the same

quality as the Tutira ewes were, accunling i.o these witnesses, purchasable in Napier at, from !>s to lbs till, ami Mr Allred Reid, agent of Williams and Kettle, had said there would hare been no difficulty in obtaining similar owes at those prices, which, lauded f. 0.1). at Napier, would lie. less than the price if the contract IkAwcm the plaintiff a:.! defendant. Mr Harper opposed Mr St r> uat’.s interpret.! lion oi the term •'t.o.h., and quoted precedents to show tout the vendor . under art f.o.b. sale, was to he held responsible for (he liming of a convex a nee for the delivery of the goods to tire purchaser, tire piii.'ing of the goods on the conveyance, .■,':) the defraying of the expenses in comr.-ffion with such perioniiances. The plaintiff was in the habit of buying slice!) in the Mcrtii Jsla id. and informed ihilgety and Co. ‘ha!, he was a siieenf.trmer in Canterbury. In view of that fact, counsel continued, it was dearly the duty of the defendants to make delivery in Canterbury at the time specified ;n the coni, act. When such delivery v, as ra t made, the plaintiff cos out,tied to damages representing the

differc cs between the contract pi ice and the price ruling in Canterbury, which would have been the profit the plaint iff would have expected had delivery been made according to the contract. Alter quoting precedents, Mr

Harper submitted that it must he held on the evidence that it was llie inlenlioi.lu send the sheep from the local market. r i uf: sheep were intended to

be slopped, and it was only reasonable to suppose a knowledge on defendant’s part as to the destination of the slice]). Referring to the evidence, Mr Harper pointed out that Mr Elliott had said ifi.n if he ('hi Elliott ) could have guaranteed liie obtaining o! similar sheen to the ewes contracted for, and at a pr.ee not exceeding the contract mice, he would have felt hound to intorm' Alt. i utter. Counsel further tubimt'ed that the parties to the contract in Hawke’s Bay did not ente - tain any. idee, that Mr Latter should claim -the damages they offered, based cm the Hawke’s Bay market prices, hid according to the claim Mr Latter was now limling. He submitted that the den miauls practically admitted thou- liability when they advised Mr I,alter to make a claim of jjs per he)'' 1 frit the owe- i» ()l delivery. In any cast, he submitted plaintiff was entitle.! to damages for breach of contract. and not merely nominal costs.

In the meantime, tire country generally will doubtless hold trie belief that the sun will rise and the rains descend, and the work of Government ho carried on successfully, even if the Merediths and many others fail to secure seats again,—Marton Advocate.

As a matter of fact, many members of the Lobby Brigade are frequently hard at work doing good service for them- constituents, whilst the men in the House who are doing the talking are wilfully wasting time playing the fool and putting the country to unnecessary expense. —Eltham Argus. Of course, it is anomalous that we should have hundreds of thousands to spare for Loyal receptions. Federal celebrations, reception of Imperial troops, farewelling of Contingents. King’s Coronations, ana a hundred and one other Cmihir displays, and no money to keep tiie public works of the colonv going. But what of that : —Auckland Observer.

The prinoipl • of the Eight HornI'm- Bill line triumphantly readied ihe Statute hook, and reached it in ihe hour of retreat of the objectionable Factories Bill foisted by an official on an unsuspecting and guileless Government: —Ashburton Standard. Hurrah ; The great Federal Parliament has reduced the duty ou condensed milk to a p°nny per pound After this, and the reduction on canary soed, New Zealand will surely wee; that they are not in. the Federation.— Carterton Leader.