DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 133, 20 May 1926, Page 5

DAIRY EXPORT CONTROL

POWERS OF THE BOARD. J Ruling- of the Court Sought. An originating; summons has been filed in the Supreme Court at Wellington for the purpose of obtaining the ruling of the Court on certain important questions -which arise in connection with the administration of the Dairy Export Control Board’s policy of absolute control under the Dairy Produce Export Control Act, 1923. The summons has been taken out by the Waitaki Dairy Co. Ltd., and the Control Board is cited as ■defendant. Several of the points on which the Court’s ruling is sought are of considerable interest and importance. The Act defines a “ producer ” as a person supplying milk or cream to , factories manufacturing dairy produce for export. No mention is made of V"-factories manufacturing for local consumption and the ruling of the Court is sought as to whether the Act applies at all in the case of a factory ™ manufacturing chiefly for the local market and exporting its surplus output only. Section 14 prohibits the export of •dairy produce except in terms of contract made by the Control Board “ as agents for the owners,” while section 16 of the Act gives the board authority to give directions for the sale of dairy produce on such terms as the board thinks fit. Whether section 16 gives the board authority to sell dairy produce on such terms as it thinks fit contrary to the express instructions of the principals mentioned in section 14 is another important question which the Court is asked to determine. If the board disregards the instructions of a principal (i.e., an exporting factory), and a loss occurs, •can the exporting factory recover damages from its agent for breach of contract? If the board is held liable at any time for damages of any kind -what fund is to be drawn upon for -such damages " Section 19 prohibits the members of the board from personal liability for acts done “in good faith ” in the course of the operations of the board, , but what constitutes “ good faith ” ? • The section makes it clear that the Board is merely “ agent ” and the law of agency governs the board’s actions. But if the board deliberately ignores the wishes of its principals can the members of the board be said fto have acted “ in good faith ” ? The decision of the Court on these •and many other questions will be awaited -with interest by many within and without the farming community.