DELIVERY REFUSED

Hokitika Guardian, 7 May 1921, Page 1

DELIVERY REFUSED

WELLINGTON, May 4. A judgment of much interest to importers was delivered to-day by Mr Bundle, S.M., in a ease in which Parburv, Henty and Co., of Sydney, claimed from r.empriero and Co. of Wellington, £97 4s 3d in respect of certain goods.

Plaintiffs, through.an agent, obtained from defendants a written order to supply five cases which contained 30 dozen white and gold cups and saucers. Tho order was given in December, 1919. In June of tho following year the first lot of five delivered to defendants, who paid for the goods. On November 17th plaintiffs shipped from Kobe (Japan) to Wellington four packages of merchandise described as porcelain. The steamer proceeded direct to Sydney and the goods were acorclingly transhipped in the Manuka, which arrived in Wellington in January last from Svdney. Plaintiffs drew on defendants for £97 4s 3d. Defendants refused to pay the draft which they alleged was not according to tho contract. Tho plaintiffs claimed that defendants were hound to take delivery of tho goods at the price claimed in accordance with the contract. Defendants admitted the main facts, hut claim cd a non-suit on the grounds that the delay in tendering tho goods was unreasonable, and that the plaintiffs had not submitted to defendants a c.i.f .invoice as required by the contract. This was claimed to ho a condition precedent to the plaintiffs’ right to use. Mr Bundle held that the defendants were entitled to judgment on the following grounds:—(l) That tho contract between parties was for the sale and purchase of goods as an entire and indivisible contract, and that defendants were within their rights in treating the contrast as ended by the delivery of portion of the goods in June, 1920. (2) That the contract was for the sale of goods c.i.f and no o.i.f invoice in aceordanc with the contract had been tendered by the plaintiffs to the defendants. (3) That the delay in the delivery of the goods was unreasonable and entitled the defendants to refuse to accept delivery. Judgment was given for defendants with costs as per scale.