CURIOUS CASE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 405, 14 December 1932, Page 5

CURIOUS CASE

SALE OF OIL QUESTION WHETHER MAN OR COMPANY WAS RESPONSIBLE JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF A case which bore several rather eurious features of interest to businesjlieji in particular, was brought before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yesterday. The case was one in which the Vacuum Oil Co.,. Ltd., sued A. G. Cottrell for goods supplied. The defence was based on the contention that the goods were not supplied to A. G. Cottrell, but to CottrelTs Mart Ltd., d company which is now in liquidation. Mr.- Paterson decided in favour of the Vacuum Oil Company. Montague Steele, repreSentative of the Vacuum Oil Co., said that he took over the depot in October, 1931. There were two employees. Local customers ordered direct from the depot. When he took over. there was an account of A. G. tfe&krell, but none for Cottrell's Mart, Ltd., To his knowledge there was no request that goods supplied to^ C'ottrell shcmld he charged to the company. In fact he did not know that the comj^my existed. The company's system was to obtain receipted vouchers for xall goods delivered. On May 7, 1932, he received a cheque from Cottrell. Th^s v/as the first knowledge he had of the company's existence. To Mr. Potter: He did not see the two cheques produced signed by Cot-' trell's Mart, Ltd. He had not met Cottrell personally nor had dealings "\/ith the mart prior to the receipts cf the cheque. That day he got an crder and received cash for it from CottrelTs Mart, Ltd. Most of the goods were ordered over the phone. Witness did not know if the person who phone d did so on behalf of the mart. The account was originally Cottrell's and was carried on under that name. After CottrelTs Mart, Ltd., witness interviewed Cottrell and said that he held him responsible, but Cottrell repudiated liability. The goods were delivered to CottrelTs place of business (the mart) not to CottrelTs private residence and witness could not say what he did with them. No accounts were opened by telegram. In the case of a limited company, the Vacuum Oil Co. made ■nquiries prior to opening an account "nd until it was satisfied the firm paid cash. This account was open before he came. No Knowledge of Company William Rex Norman had been in charge of the Vacuum Oil Co. for four years and when CottrelTs opened the account it was in the name of A. G. Cottrell. No notification of any change to CottrelTs Mart, Ltd., jjhad been received. Witness iSeritified a number of vouchers with the signature of A. G. Cottrell on them. Witness did not know that he was operating as a limited liability company, and no protest nor notification had been received. To Mr. Potter : He did not know if Cottrell or CottrelTs Mart, Ltd., had signed the company's special credit form. Witness had on one or two occasions delivered goods to the mart. He did not know who opened the account. George William Beazley, of the Vacuum Oil Company's depot for the past three and a-half years, said that he could not" remember the opening of the account, but was sure that there was no account in the books for CottrelTs Mart, Ltd. No application to charge a company had ever been received. He identified several orders whieh he had delivered. All dockets bore the name of the person they were to be charged to before they were signed for by the recipient. The head office sent out monthly statements. Before an account was opened he had to get authority from head office. • , To Mr. Potter: Instructions to open this account would either come from the district representative or head office. Witness identified his endorsement to cheques drawn by Cottrell's Mart, Ltd., in payment for goods delivered to the mart. Witness could not remember who authorised the opening of the account. Witness did not know if Mr. Cottrell . had notified the Vacuum Oil Co. that the account was in the wrong name. Mr. Potter for the defence said that the goods had been ordered for the company not Cottrell.

Case for Defence Myrtle Alice Rosser, formerly in the Mart's office, said that she did most of the ordering by phone. She had ordered goods from the Vacuum 011 Company. She started off "CottrelTs Mart, Ltd.," speaking and then continued with the list of goods to be supplied to the mart. * There would he on behalf of CottrelTs Mart, Ltd. She had no recollection of having any authority to order on behalf of Mr. Cottrell personally. A. G. Cottrell, the defendant, gave evidence that the goods were ordered by CottrelTs Mart, Ltd., sold by CottrelTs Mart, Ltd., and the proceeds went to CottrelTs Mart, Ltd. All accounts had been paid until April 20 when Steele called and got a cheque. Witness also ordered more goods and paid cash for them. Then the company went into liquidation. Had the cheque heen presented it would have been met. When Steele -later* called upon him- and told him he held witness personally responsible witness told him that it was for the Mart Ltd. Later he notified the auditors that the account was in the wrong name. He frequently signed for goods in his own name for other people. To Mr. Davys: He would not admit that he had misled the company. His staff had instructions to always -say "CottrelTs Mart, Ltd.>" over the phone, but not to write it when signing. He had been in business him* self for two years prior to turning -the firm into a company, and it was 12 months after it had been a company that he dealt with the- .Vacuum Oil Company. The Bench decided in favour of plaintiff entering judgment for £12 5s lOd, plus court costs £1 10s, solicitors' fee £2 12s, and witnesses' expeuses £1; a total of £17 7s lOd.