A THRESHING CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2400, 17 September 1892, Page 4

A THRESHING CASE.

At the R. M. Court, Timaru, on Wednesday, His Worship, Mr C. A. Wray, R.M., gave judgment in the Geraldine case Washington v. Taggart, claim £26 16s for thrashing done, and a counter claim for £9O 12s for damages through breach of contract. Mr Postlethwaito for plaintiff, Mr Smith for defendant. His Worship said : In this case the plaintiff sues for a quantum meruit for thrashing a portion of defendant’s crop. It was proved that he agreed to thrash the whole crop at 21d per bushel, and that after thrashing the amount claimed for he committed a breach of contract by leaving the ground without any adequate reason, thus leaving part of the contract unperformed. The defendant disputed his claim foxpayment on the groxxnds that the breach in not completing the thrashing according to agreement entailed a serious loss upon him, and that he thus derived no benefit from the plaintiff’s services. After hearing the case I reserved my decision, and 1 then thought that the defendant’s remedy for the breach lay in a cross action foxdamages. This actioxx was subsequently brought by Taggart, and was heard on the last court day, after which I reserved my decision. The evidence shows conclusively that if Washington had carried out his contract the whole crop would have been saved. It was originally to have been thrashed from the stook, but subsequently it was arranged that it should be stacked, and that Washington should thrash the whole, which it was estimated would take three days. When the work was abandoned by Washington Taggart endeavoured to get others to finish it, but without success, and about a fortnight afterwards heavy rains came on, causing very great injury to the stacks, for which Taggart in his cross-action claims some £9O. The first question which presents itself then is whether the plaintiff Washington, not having completed his contract, is entitled to recover any compensation for what he has done. The I rice fixed being at so much per bushel, and so many bushels having been threshed, 1 was at first inclined to think that he could, but on further considering the question it seems to me that the answer must depend upon whether the defendant received any benefit from his labour. Addison “On Contracts ” says : “ Whenever a contract for work and services on the one side, and payment on the other, has been so far executed as to give x’iso to a cause of action in respect of the work done, but has not been fully performed, it is competent to the defendant to show in reduction of the price agreed to be paid that the subject matter of the c xntract is diminished in value by reason of the incomplete and inefficient execution of of the work by the plaintiff.” Bis Worship quoted Lord Ellenborough on such cases : “ I consider this a correct jiffe—That if there has been no beneficial service, there shall be no pay, but if some benefit has been derived, though not to the extent expected, this shall go to the amount of plaintiff s demand. The claim shall be co-extensive with the benefit.” His Worship then proceeded : —I think then that it might reasonably be anticipated that the result of the thrashing being stopped in the middle would entail risk of damage by a change of weather. In leaving the work plaintiff must have known that there would be some delay and difficulty in getting an other machine, and that if the weather changed the grain would be damaged. Owing to his conduct in leaving the work unperformed this actually happened, and the defendant was caught in'a worse positi®n than if the plaintiff had not done any work on the contract. It is to be fairly presumed that he would then have made his stacks more secure. This being so it cannot be said he derived any benefit front the part nerfonnance ; and the plaintiff; deserves nothing and cannot recover. With regard to the cross-action somewhat different considex-ations intervene, the general principle being the question whether the whole damage complained of the natural and reasonable result of the defendant’s acts. In one sense as I have stated, this may be so, that is the grain would have been saved if thrashed at once according to contract. On the other hand the season was an unusually bad oxxe, and so far not anticipated by the parties to that extent; great injury and loss being cone unexpectedly throughout the district, and a fortnight elased after the the breach during which the plaintiff, not securing a thrasher, might have thatched his stacks his stacks. Ido not think him entitled to further damages unde?' the circumstances, but will allow the threfc last items in his claim, for horse hire, coal, and extra price paid for thrashing, amounting to £5 14s, with costs. Mr Postlethwaite, for plaintiff; Washington, gave notice of appeal. We understand that the appeal will not be gone on with.