THE SALE OF STOCK.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 February 1922, Page 5

THE SALE OF STOCK.

RESPONSIBILITY OF AGENTS. THEIR DUTY TO THE SELLER. IMPORTANT COURT CASE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wanganui, Lent Night. A case of very great interest to stock agency firms and farmers occupied three days of the Supreme Court. W. A. Darcy sought to recover £4302 from Dalgety and Co. and J. H. Powell, butcher, of Westport, on account of an uncompleted sale of stock. A nonsuit was granted in the case of Powell. Darcy sold 97 bullocks to Powell, through Dalgety and Co. on August 18, but Powell did not pay by the required time and the stock were sent back to the farm. In October plaintiff sold the stock at a loss of £556, having in the interim been put to the expense of grazing the cattle. It was contended for plaintiff that Dalgety and Co. were a well-known firm of great reputation carrying on business and that when a farmer sold stock through a stock firm the fanner looked to the stock agent to pay the money and did not look to the actual purchaser for payment, as often the latter’s financial resources were unknown to the vendor. Plaintiff called lengthy evidence to show that that was the universal custom in the business. It was further contended that Dalgety and Co. should have made every inquiry in regard to the financia l stability of the purchaser of the stock and notified the vendor.

The issues put to the jury were:— (1) Was there a recognised usuage amongst stock agents and farmers in the Wanganui district at the time the contract was made, under which a stock agent undertook in all cases to pay to the vendor the price of the stock sold through the agency of such stock agents, whether or not the stock which was the subject of the sale had been delivered to the vendor?

(2) When a drover took cattle from the farm did Dalgety and Co. approve of his act as delivery to the purchaser? (3) Was there a recognised usuage amongst stock agents and farmers in such district under which a stock agent owed a duty to the vendors before introducing a proposed purchaser to the principal to make sufficient enquiries as to the financial ability of the proposed purchaser to complete the proposed sale, and before the making of a contract to communicate the information acquired as the result of such inquiries to his principal ? Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., for Dalgety and Co., argued that as there was no precedent to this case there was no usuage or recognised custom which placed such a liability on a stock agency, contending that the evidence of farmers was only their opinion. This case, he argued, was cash on delivery. In the event of credit being given an agency was liable. There had been no delivery to .Powell, because the stock would then have been in Powell’s possession, whereas Dalgety and Co. were determined there should be no delivery until the cash was paid. Mr. Skerrett contended that issue three was inconsistent with the rest of plaintiff’s case, which said that a farmer was not concerned as to the buyer. Mr. Neave, for Darcy, contended that ample evidence had been adduced to show what was in the minds of the farming community. Even one witness for Dalgety. a stock agent from Palmerston North, said he believed until recently that stock agencies undertook liability as now alleged. No claim had ever been made before because of the rising market. , Counsel commented on the amount of correspondence between Dalgety and Powell, and also referred to the recent alteration in the form of he sale note, which now said the vendor would not look to the agent if the purchaser failed. The jury on Saturday night returned the answer “yes” to all issues. Application is to be made by Dalgety and Co. for a re-h. aring if a non-suit point already raised fails.