BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2849, 21 February 1925, Page 3

BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

At yesterday’s S.M. Court, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., Tbe Ring Proprietory Co. Ltd., Auckland (Mr Bergin) proceeded against the Awaliou Auctioneering Co. (Mr .Grant) for the recovery of £l7 8/6, allegedly due to them for the sale to the defendant company of certain remedies for cow diseases in September 1923. Evidence for the plaintiff company, taken in Auckland, was submitted to the S.M. In evidence G. T. Woodroofe said that in September 1923 Mr Frith, representing the Ring Proprietory Co. Ltd., Auckland, had called on him and asked his company to take on the agency for this district for the Ring cow remedies. An agreement had been drawn up by Mr McMurray and signed. Mr Frith had promised to forward witness certain advertising matter in connection with the but it had not come to hand. The articles arrived in due course but .no attempt was made to sell them. A few packets were broken open. Witness regarded the goods as consigned and did not think there was any obligation on his company to pay for them. Mr Frith had marked out two sets of prices. One, the price at which the company was to be charged for the goods and the other the price at which they were to sell. After receiving several accounts for the goods from the plain tiff company witness packed the goods up and forwarded them to the Ring Proprietory. They had refused to take delivery of them, how ever, and instituted proceedings for the recovery of the sum alleged to be due to them.

Mr Bergin: The agreement stated cash on delivery. Witness said that Air Frith had told him that it would lie all right. The S.AI. said that neither the correspondence between tbe two companies, tbe agreement nor order bore out what witness had stated. The whole thing showed that a straight out sale had been made. In a letter to the Ring Proprietory Co. in September 1924, twelve months after receiving the goods, witness had asked the firm to take the goods, back as there had been a dissolution of partnership and he “could neither push the goods nor sell them.” Mr McMurray gave evidence as to the drawing up of the agreement. The S.M. said that the defendant company had kept the goods for twelve months before sending them back. Their conduct had been at fault in keeping the goods until the business liquidated. Evidence showed that they had tried to get the plaintiff company to take the goods back. Judgment would be entered up for plaintiff company with costs.