DAVIDSON v. FRASER.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXX, Issue 5, 8 April 1916, Page 2

DAVIDSON v. FRASER.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT.

At the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., delivered his reserved decision in the civil case Davidson and Coy (Air A. H. Johnstone) v. Angus Fraser (Mr 'll. Spance). Tlie decision read as follows: The Plaintiffs claim the sum ol £l3l 5s as damages for a breach of a 'contract in writing contained in a lletter bearing date the 17th day of I November, 1914, from Messrs Bayly land Co., of Stratford, Agents for the defendant to the plaintiffs., and a teleIgram bearing date the 19tli day of 'November, 1914, from the plaintiff to Messrs Bayly and Co. as agents for the defendant, whereby the defendant by his agents, the said Bayly and Co., 'agreed to sell and deliver to the plaintiffs within a reasonable time, the defendant's wool clip at the price 'of 9Jd on trucks, Huiroa. j The defendant did not deliver to the plaintiff's the said wool or any part of

it. I Particulars of the plaintiff's claim are set out in the account marked | "A" annexed hereto. I Particulars of Claim.—To market Value of 8,40001bs of greasy wool (bg. 21 bales of 4.001bs each) on 22n<| February, 1915, being date of shipment by defendant of his wool by S.S. Kai- ; koura, at Waitara, at Is lid per lb, '.€472 10s; less allowance for railage and charges from Huiroa to Waitara ,->d per lb, £8 155.—£463 15s. Less • contract price of above wooi 9id per lb, £332 10.5.—£131 ss. Before conjsidering the question of damages, there are two points in the case to be dealt with. I First—-Did the defendant appoint Bayly and Co. his agents with power lon his behalf to sell the wooi to the plaintiffs or any one else? And Secondly—lf there was such an appointment, was it revoked before 'any si le took place by Bayly on behalf ,of defendant:-'

] am of opinion that the defendant did not appoint Bayly his agent in the matter. . Bayly and an employee of his. named Dunlop, went to the l'endant's place on the 17th November for the purpose of buying wool. The question of agency was not mentioned, referred to or ' contemplated. Bayly had never acted as defendant's agent, lor had any previous dealings with him. I Bayly and Dunlop tried to get the wool quoted to them at the lowest price they could. All they got from Fraser was a statement that he might [be willing to sell at 9R and Bayly I said he could not buy at that price j without referring. As a fact, Bayly | had no authority then from anyone to I buy. He was trying to got business,' 1 and trusting to get commission out cf jit from someone. Bayly requested de- ! fondant to send him a sample of the wool, and defendant brought him a sample within a day or two. Bayly' 'held himself out to defendant as a j buyer. Probably he intended as the transaction developed, by a skilful j turn, to become the agent of the defendant, but the matter did not pro-

ceotl sufficiently for him to have an opportunity of doing this. Commission Agents not infrequently pursue this course, and pursue it .successfully, but they cannot make themselves ag?nt;s unless their alleged principals really appoint them. Xo doubt agency may be established without a formal appointment, and a man may make another his agent by words, acts, course of conduct or ratification of acts done, without his Authority, but I do not think the defendant in this case has brought himself within any of these conditions. I am also of opinion that before the e was any acceptance by Bayly of the offer of the wool at 9|d (even if such an offer was made) the defendant withdrew such offer by informing Dunlop, Bayly's unquestioned agent in the matter, that he, the defendant, was sending the .wool home through the B:\nk. The evidence was voluminous, .aid the statements supporting the finding of fact are scattered throughout it. If 1 quoted it all, I must either set it out in full, or be open to the suggestion of taking selected portions to support my view. I deal witii it as a whole, and I have come to the conclusions stated. Judgment for defendant, with cons.