ANTI-PROFITEERING.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3484, 12 May 1920, Page 5

ANTI-PROFITEERING.

AND REPLACEMENT COSTS.

AN INTERESTING -QUESTION.

-CHRISTCHURCH, ‘ May 11

Charges against five hardware firms under the anti-profiteering clauses of the Board of Trade"Aclt_la'id by the Board of Trade at the "instance of the Canterbury Prices Investigation .Tribunal, will be heard "in" the Mag‘is_trate’.s Court, on Wednesday, and are arousing considerable interest in trading circles, for they are likely to be fought largely on the question of Whether firms, in selling ‘goods, may take into consideration the cost of replacement. Actual charges have been made in respect to the sale of a standard line of alarms clocks, but,as the

‘Court isexpected to make a pronouncement on‘ the much-discussed questionof “replacement costs’: the cases have an importance quite outside that of the articles involved. A straight out decision on the “cost of replacement” question has not yet been made by thectourts in New Zealand.

Four of the firms concerned were drawn into the matter in a. rather peculiar way_ Complaint was made by a private individual; to the fifbunal that a. retail hardware merchant had sold certain alarm clocks at rates 5/ higher than another man. The tribunal, after investigation, decided that the profit made by the first man was excessive, being apparently based on’ What would soon be the fifiporting dost. In order to verify the information, the tribunal investigated the books of other hardware. concerns, three of which conduct retail departments in connection with their wholesale businesses. The result Was that these firms were believed to be selling at a. higher price, and they have also been charged. In addition a case against a man in respect to the sale of an Eovercoat, and two or three further cases are pending. .