SALE OF GOODS.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 November 1922, Page 4

SALE OF GOODS.

| MR M. MYERS, K.C., OX CON- I ' TRACTS. Then- "as a full attendance of mem- \ . bei'.s of the Wellington Accountant Students' Society last week, when -Mr M. Myers, K.C., delivered an address ■ on “ Contracts Relating to the Sale oi , Goods.” , Mr M.vers traced at the outset the . carlv history of the Salt' oi Goods Ac r . . and pointed out that the law relating I 1 to the sale of goods was in reality only ■ I the law of common sense, with the exception of the Statue of I 1 rands contained in Section YT, which had heen in ] force since the reign of Charles 11. Til • lecturer urged the necessity of .con -1 tracts fwr over L'TO I icing in writing, t i r as an alternative a contract note signe : 3 by the person to he charged, otherwise s tiiev were not enforceable at law. If e went on to deal at length with f.o.b. (1 and e.if. contracts, and stated that the . former had been in force sine" time in> . memorial, whereas the latter was c more recent creation. The essential difference in law between the two eonn tracts was that in c.i.f. contracts tie e- duty of the seller was to find the she' | r e and place the goods on hoard, while in j i- f.o.b. contracts it was flic duty of the | r buyer to find the ship. The risk ( i |7l transit, however, in c.i.f. contracts was ! _ that of the buyer and not the seller. •' Mr .Myers emphasised the practice e f 10 indent agents in eonibining orders on ln the c.i.f. contract and stated that c «> buyer was entitled to one hill ef ladin - ?c covering his own trends onlv, and tlia 1 i es failing a separate hill of lading a buyer |,_ could reject the goods unless he had contracted to accept a deliver' - order ir lieu thereof. The usual condition in a contract note was for cash in exchange u ' for documents, and a buyer was obliged a to pnv for the goods innncdiatcl.v on ;h delivery of the documents, although the goods might not arrive for some con- (_ siderable time. The seller, however, was bound to ship the goods in good order and condition, but it was difficult

for n buyer to prove a "l'cacn oj mu.-, ( i nridit ion unless ibe mjo.ls arrived in i I ~■„(■'( ;| rniieit mu tiiai it <•: old ntii ( V y;,,,,1 e m'i vr d tie t Hi y were . dammnnl in transit. , I

i'asnnta-tl in transit. , V. here <■<; ds ere Ml by '.lev:, i :oji | , r s::i, 1 1 1 ■ • they :M 1 ' *■’ l ] i hr.!.]; ,m;ri eorr M’/iid ttiih lie.’ <lc- j i vriplion or sample }'i« n, l •' sl) ' j airily hv (Usci'iiifinn r.nd partly b,\ | ■unplt’ of noods mud correspond with i ;-,lh. 1!' tin- gauds (lid not enrrespoml, j ho buyer has the rich) o! r i*(■ tii> l l. ■ mil if lie does _nat i“ je-l i .cm lv.’ has , i riyhl la claim damage- lor a breach if warrant v. Although lime was aI- i nays rn s.-nce of contract, yel speak- , iinr o' no rail;.- time for either delivery or i shipment is usually a stipulation "hieh . is an essence of the contract and ill the j ah-enc- of special conditions the floods | must he delivered within a reasonable j time o r tcr Iho order is made, Further-] more, negotiations ns to time betucen buyer and seller often created a new eentraet, halt the same must he in writing Ie he enforeealile at law. Me emphasised the necessity of the seller -ending all the coeds .stimulated in the contract, otherwise the buyer could reject them if the whole quantity was not seif, and similarly the buyer had the seme right if less coeds were sent In Mm sellelr. Moreover. if not. all the um«s ordered in t lie? contract were for"■cri.hd, the Courts had decided that the huver has the right to refuse the "ds.