Alleged Overcharge by Dressmaker

Grey River Argus, 1 June 1948, Page 5

Alleged Overcharge by Dressmaker

AUCKLAND, May 31. Submissions that an exclusive design warranted a legitimate extra charge on the manufacture of a dress were made bv counsel for Flora Mackenzie, designer and dressmaker, who denied a breach of the Control bf Prices Act, when she appeared before Mr Morling, S.M. She was charged with charging rates not in conformity with the special approved rate for making dresses. For the Price Tribunal, Mr Rosen said MacKenzie, operating as Ninette Gowns, made up customers’ own materials. She had received a special approved rate from the Price Tribunal for cutting and making garments, with a maximum of £3 12s for each garment, plus costs for trimming, workroom profit and retail mark-up. Mackenzie had charged £39 las for a woman’s suit and two- frocks, which were made from the customer’s own material. An inyestiga> tion by an inspector showed that Mackenzie had overcharged by ilu 15s 10d, or 27 per cent. “Creative Genius 1 ”

Mr Beckerleg, who appeared ror MacKenzie, submitted that payment for the creative genius and native ability of the designer was not Included in the authorised price rate. Individual designs by Mackenzie were worth £lO in 1939 and the charge for a distinctive design was a legitimate charge on the cutting and making of the dress. . In. evidence, Mackenzie described the designing, embroidery work and draping involved in making on e ot her models. , She said that no allowance had been made by the Price Tribunal for a charge for designing, which might amount to 30 guineas for three frocks. “The alleged overcharge seems to be substantially in the designing charge,” said the Magistrate. He adjourned the case for a week m order to allow further evidence to be called. '