BUSINESS TRANSACTION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5399, 13 March 1929, Page 3

BUSINESS TRANSACTION.

SALE OR COMMISSION 1 COURT FINDS FOR PLAINTIFF. In the Magistrate’s Court at Paeroa on Monday, before Mr F. W. Platts, S.M., R. W. Lo.wry (Mr C- N. O'Neill) claimed from C- Rehm (Mr Garland), of Hikutaia, £lO9 3s 4d, balance alleged to be due for sale of drapery stock. Plaintiff stated that in July, 1925, Mr and Mrs Rehm arranged to take ever the bulk of his drapery stock. They came to his house and took delivery of goods to the value of. £283 13s sd, and further goods were supplied during the nqxt 12 months to the value of ,£76 Bs, 6d. At the interview in July the discussion was based an a sale at cost price, but during negotiations the defendant agreed to take the goods at 25 per centl less than the marked retail price. He assured defendant that the difference between his retail pric.es and wholesale cost was approximately 25 per. cent. He produced his Wholesale accounts and gave Mendant the option of taking at wholesale price or retail less 25 per cent. Defendant appeared tei be satisfied to complete the deal on the latter basis, and took the goods away .with him. A list of the goods taken was made at the; time, but the total pric.e was not extended. Defendant. called at Mr Forrest’s house at Paeroa. about two months later to settle the final details. Mr and Mrs Dolwry were staying with. Mr Forrest at the time, and there were prepent at that interview Mr and Mrs. Lowry, Mr. and Mrs Rehm, and Mr Forrfipt. Plaintiff stated that he then produced a detailed list of the goods with the, total prices extended and added, and showing 25 per cent, deducted from the total. A contra account, owing by him to defendant amounting t° £lO was alsci deducted, and defendant undertook to pay this balance, amounting to £273 10s, half in three months and the . balance in six months. He received' only one cheque from defendant-, on December 22, 1926, for £27 9s 3d. Rehm, however, supplied groceries to plaintiff’s bro-ther-in-law, Mr Peterson. The parties had a settlement -occasionally, and on November 30, 1927, he owed defendant £llO 17s lid for goods supplied. He called at defendant’s shop, and tjie two accounts .were adjusted by deducting the £llO 17s Hd from the balance then owing by Rehm, leaving a balance owing to him of. £lB3. Severa] demands for payment were made, but it was not until Septembejr, 1928, that Rehm, said he would not pay, and asked plaintiff to take the balance of his goods back. To Mr Garland witness stated! that it was on Mr Rehm’s own suggestion that the sale took place. He was certainly leaving Hikutaia, and was anxious to sell his, goods, but the suggestion came in the first place from Mr and Mrs Rehm. Witness definitely asserted that defendant tetok the goods at the retail prices marked' and wad quite satisfied with 25 per cent discount. The black silk stockings (produced) were selected by Mrs Rehm from the stock and were at that time quite saleable, in spite of the, fact that the cotton upper part extended below the knee. The spencers included in the list were also selected by Mrs Rehm and were a,t that time saleable.

His Worship : What, are spencers ? Mr Garland replied that he believed! a spencer was a lady’s undergarment with long sleeves.

Continuing, witness: said that Mr and Mrs Rehm would have no' idea how much the total cost of the gpofls would be, but they must have knptwh they could finance the; dleal, otherwise they would not ha.ve gone on with it.

Mr W. Forrest corroborated Mr Lowry’s evidence as to the arrangement for payment made at his house. Mrs Peterson detailed what happened on the day Mr Rehm took over the main portion of the goodls. Witness said she had had several years’ experience in the drapery business, both in Hikutaia apd in Auckland Cross-examined by Mr Garland, Mrs Peterson stated that spencers were saleable, and' were frequently worn by women on the farms who had to get up on cold mornings to work in the sheds. The black stockings', which wejre also produced, were frequently asked for by elderly ladies. Mr s. .Lowry corroborated plaintiff’s evidence regarding the preliminary discussion at. Hikutaia and the meeting at Mr Forrest’s house in Paeroa. Mr, Garland stated that there was not much divergence between the plaintiff’s version and defendant’s version of what had happened l . His main line of defence was that the defendant did not, buy the goods but had taken them for sale at a commission of 's.s in the £•

•Mrs Rehm stated that Mr R e hm had been selling goods for the plaintiff for two years. Before the gOodS sued fop had been taken over, they were allowed a commission of. 20 per ( cent, on these goods, and when Mr Lowry was leaving Hikutaia he asked her if they would take iover his drapery. She sajdi they wtould try to sell it for him if he would give them a higher commission. This, he agrepd: to do. They did not select the goods, but just took what Mr Lowry had placed on the table for them. She asked Mr Lowry to produce the wholesale lists, but he said he could not find them. At the meeting ati Mr F c «'- rejst’s house Mrs Lowry and Mrs Forrest did not join in t'he discussion. The ladies were out when were were discussing the business; No account was kept of. the goods sold, and it was not until quite recently that Mr Rehm had told her Mr Lowry claimed to have sold the; goods to them. There was a lot of unsaleable goods which she would not have taken had it been a sale. Witness stated that, Mr Rehm s turnover during, the year these goods were taken over was between £4500 and £5OOO, and on such a turnover they c.ould not possibly have agreed to pay sO much money in such, a short time.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill, witness stated that she allowed 6di in the X discount off all goods sold, including

Mr Lowry’s goods. The reason why they went to Mr Forrest’s housetop Mr Lowry was to have the £lO which Mr, Lowry owed taken off. Eva White stated that all Mi' Lowry’s goods were kept separate, and she was not allowed to sell except at the price marked on the goods. A large quantity was old and out of fashion.

Further evidence of the unsaleable nature of the stock was given, one witness stating that, spencers had been out of date for tien years, Charles Rehm stated that in June, 1926, Mr Lowry told him that, he was leaving Hikutaia and asked him to take over his stock. At the; time the goods uere taken over he saw no wholesale dockets. Mr Lowry stated; he could not find them. At no time did he agree to buy. the goods. It was untrue to state that he agyejed to pay half in three months and half in six months. He had never sold Mr Lo-wry’s goods at less than marked prices. The first intimation he had from plaintiff that, lie had bought the goods was in September, 1928. He still bad £133 worth of gpbds in hand, and had asked plajntiff to take delivery.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill, witness stated that, he did not allow Mr Lowry to obtain orders for more than the amount owing to- him from time to time for consignment sales. He ascertained the amount due to Mr Lowry by judging the valitq of the stock left. He did not take stock accurately, but went round with a pencil and paper and estimated it roughly. At the present time Mr Lowry owed him about £3. Witness was, closely cross-examined by Mr O’Neill concerning the calculation by which he; arrived at Mr Lowry’s indebtedness of £3, but he became confused and) Could not give any satisfactory explanation. The magistrate said that the tion for the Court to decide was whether a sale had taken place or whether defendant had the goods from plaintiff for sale on commission. No agreement in writing had! been prepared, and it was therefore necessary to look to what the parties, (fid rather than to what they now said after the lapse of so much time. The actions w'e;rc consistent with his statement that he had sold the goods. The defendant’s action, on the other hand, were not consistent with his’ version tha,t he held the goods for. sale on commission, and could be explained only if the transaction were regarded as a sale. Plaintiff’s witnesses had! given their evidence clearly, and he preferred to believe them rather than the defendant and: his witnesses. The plaintiff had kqpt a clear account and record of his transactions, ,but the defendant, on the other hand, if the transaction was: a sale, had kept his books, in a state which was near enough for the purpose, but in hopeless confusion if his; version that. he. held the goods on consignment was to be believed; Judgment .would accordingly be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed 1 , £lO9 3s 4d, and Court costs, £l2 «3s ioa.

The case started ,at 3.45 p.m. and lasted until 11.50 p.m., with a break ,«f half, an hour for tea.,