PAYMENT FOR JEWELLERY

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5062, 8 December 1926, Page 2

PAYMENT FOR JEWELLERY

A QUESTION OF DISCOUNT. MAGISTRATE RESERVES DECISION A case before Mr F. W. Platts. S.M., at the Magis.trate’s Court, Paeroa, on Monday was one in which. Walker and Hall, wholesale jewellers .and silversmiths, Auckland, claimed From William McCullay, jeweler, Paeroa, the sum of £65 Is lOd in payment of goods alleged to have been supplied. Mr R. S. Carden, instructed by Messrs Russell, Campbell, and McVeagh, Auckland, appeared 'for the plaintiffs and Mr E. A. Porritt for the defendant

In opening for the defence Mr Porritt said that the defendant admitted an ampunt of £3o'. The point was, the difference between the wholesale and retail prices of the goods siupplied, and the matter of discounts. The facts, briefly, were that early in June last the defendant made inquiries from the plaintiffs regarding the purchase of hotel silverware. A reply was received the following month. On the reply and samples being satisfactory the goods were ordered, and later a,n account (produced) was received. Another account was; later forwarded by plaintiffs which differed from the original one. No terms had been mentioned on the original account other than that the prices were strictly net. No mention was made on the invoice as to the time, in which payment was to be made. Defendant received the 'goods on the understanding that he was to pay £7B 18s Id, and there had- been no mention o’f any terms of sale. Between June 16 and 20 defendant paid a sum of £5O flo plaintiffs, and an invoice was. received later for. £2B 18s Id, which defendant considered Was the total balance due for the goods; supplied. It was admitted that defendant had givenan undertaking to pay for the goods, and had, in fact, paid a substantial sum. In October the question of discount had been discussed with plaintiffs’ agent at Paeroa, and a definite arrangement was made and the s,um of £8 18s Id telegraphed to plaintiffs. At that time it was arranged that the balance, £2O, should be paid at the end of the month. Next day the defendant received a summons. Defendant could not be expected to live if he had to be but of pocket in handling plaintiffs’ goods. It was not a business practice.

William McCullay, defendant, detailed the ordering and receipt of certain goods 'from plaintiffs. It was understood that plaintiffs were to ajolw him 25 per cent, and 10 per cept. on the goods, but there wasi nothing binding as to the time in which payment was to be made. Defendant was examined and cross-examined at length as to the amounts Paid and the different letters and invoices that had passed between the parties. Beta McCullay, book-keeper for the defendant, gave evidence concerning the conversation between defendant and the plaintiff firm’s traveller. She stated that s.he heard defendant say he would telegraph £8 18s Id to the plaintiffs and the balance would be paid in 10 days’ time. The; traveller said that the arrangements would be acceptable to plaintiffs. A moneyorder telegram was despatched by her first thing next morning. The traveller did not leave PaerPa until the following day. To Mr Carden witness said that she did not know what the traveller had telegraphed .to his firm at Auckland. The only amount under discussion was the £2B 18s Id, the large, amount, not being mentioned in the conversation. Mr florritt said that defendant’s case was reliant on the original contract made, on the arrangement entered into with plaintiffs’ traveller, and i’f plaintiffs insisted on deducting the discount some ajliowance should be made for the £5O paid.

Mr Carden contended that the' deal was a cash transaction, and there was no gainsaying that the defendant had not completed his part of the deal. Although £5O had been paid on July 13, it vzias only a part performance. Defendant’s attitude all along had not been consistent with a man who .expected discounts or concessions. With regard to .the compromise •made between defendant and the plaintiffs’ traveller, the firm had stated thajt the traveller had no authority to make any arrangements. It was rather unusual that defendant had been in such a hurry to telegraph a remittance. It was defendant wished to retain the discounts, as £36 3s 9d by way df discount wag a big matter to a retail jeweller. Defendant had not had many dealings, with the firm, but there had been delay over ■ previous -accounts. There .Was evidence that discounts; would be granted had it been a cash transaction.

The Magistrate stated that he would give a written judgment later.