AN ORDER FOR BOOTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 July 1921, Page 2

AN ORDER FOR BOOTS.

DELIVERY CANCELLED. NEW PLYMOUTH "RETAILER’S CASE. A rather unusual case concerning the question of the interpretation of a contract entered into by a boot manufacturing firm and a retailer was decided in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, when Mr. E. Page, S.M., deEvered his reserved judgment in the civil action in which Charles J. Ward, Ltd., proceeded against Roy J. Deare, of New Plymouth in a claim for the sum of £177 13s, being the alleged agreed price of 114 pairs of boots ordered by the defendant from the plaintiffs on October 27, 1920, and duly delivered to the defendant. The plaintiffs are boot manufacturers carrying on business in Wellington, and the defendant is a boot retailer in business in New Plymouth. Out he date mentioned above .plaintiffs’ traveller called on the defendant, who gave an order for certain boots of a total value of £177 13s. The order stipulated that the plaintiffs were to deliver half the goods on November 30, 1920, and the balance on January 20, 1921. On November 24, the defendant telegraphed to the plaintiffs cancelling the order. Plaintiffs replied that the order was in course of manufacture, and that they regretted that they were unable to accept cancellation. The manufacture of the boots was proceeded with, and on Decemmber 23 the whole of the order reached New Plymouth. The defendant refused delivery, and the articles were returned to Wellington. The material facts were not disputed by the defence, which submitted that the time on which the delivery was tendered justified the defendant in refusing delivery. The magistrate said that he did not think that a purchaser who had agreed to purchase goods of this nature for delivery in two instalments was bound to accept the whole consignment in one lot. Even if time was held not to be (h 6 essence of the contract, and that delivery might be made within a reasonable time of the stipulated dates, he thought that the tender of delivery was too late so far as the November instalment was concerned. The defendant was advised by the traveller that the goods should be ready within a few weeks of the date of the order. It was said on behalf of the plaintiffs that the date of delivery referred, in reality, to the dates on which the goods were to be invoiced. It was shown, that goods invoiced on and after 20 th of any month were treated for the purposes of discounts as though invoiced in the following month. This fact was probably responsible for the dates of delivery being fixed at the 20th rather than for example, the 19th or 18th of the two months. It might be said that as the defendant purported to cancel I the orders on November 24th the plain- ! tiff was absolved fiom the duty of tenderling delivery at all. The plaintiffs could, ! if they had chosen, have treated the teleI gram and the subsequent letter of cani collation as a repudiation by the defendant lof the contract. A second point raised iby the defence was (hat the remedy, if any, of the plaintiffs was an action for damages for breach of contract and pot an action to recover the price of the goods. His Worship considered that the defendant was entitled to succeed on that ground also. Finally, the magistrate nonsuited plaintiffs, allowing the defendant costs.