PROFITEERING CHARGES.

Hokitika Guardian, 29 June 1920, Page 4

PROFITEERING CHARGES.

(i’er Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 28. Giving judgment Air McCarthy, S.M. said in regard to tho alarm clocks the judgment set out that none of the increases in price was made capriciously with a View to exploitation. They were forced on all concerned by the economic condition* solely caused by the war. Whenever an increase >n price was maxi© til© time selected, was when the local market had become well nigh depleted. Care was taken to cause as small a loss as possible to dealers. In regard to the custom of selling at replacement value, which was general and uniform, and considered a sound and honourable business practice, his Worship found it was reasonable practice

In regard to the charge against the D.I.C. it was contended for the defence that the pricing of a raincoat, which was one of a job line, which oost 21/6 and was offered for sale at 45/-, had been in accordance with the regular and recognised trade custom. No evidence by anyone in the drapery trade outisde the employment of tlie company, had been called and his Worship said it could not be reasonably held that tlie fixing of the price was in accordance with trade usage. The price was fixed as near to the full ietail price as would secure the sale, thus giving some slight advantage to the customer. Even assuming that there had been evidence of such trade usage he would have had no difficulty in finding that such usage was unreasonable. What was bought by the trader as a job line should be retailed as such.

After discussing the economic conditions which led to the passing of the Statute, his Worship said he could not agree with the contention for the defence that ’every individual sale of goods which was attacked under Section 32 of the Board of Trade Act, could only he so attacked In the light of the average profit made by the defendant trader in his business. To so interpret this section would ho to render its provisions a dead letter. Commercial profits within the meaning of Section 32, were those produced according to usages and practices universal in the mercantile world or in a particular industry, as defined. If it was necessary for the public welfare that these usages should lie declared illegal, the remedy was to he had under Sections 12 and 26 of the Act. No order as oo costs was made against the Crown in the clock eases but in the ease of the D.T.C., costs were fixed at £ls, and costs of the appeal at £IOO.