SUPPLY OF CYCLE PUMPS

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 114, 11 November 1919, Page 7

SUPPLY OF CYCLE PUMPS

CLAIM SUCCEEDS.

The decision of the Court in the case of J. H. Flockton and Company, of, Wellington, v E. D. Bennett, cycle importer, of Wanganui, a claim in respect of a contract for the supply of cycle pumps to the defendant by the plaintiff company, was given by Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. When the order was taken the plaintiff had already placed five or six small retail orders at 30s per dozen, and there was a conflict of evidence between the parties as to whether that fact was communicated to the defendant before entering into the written contract. The defendant was informed by plaintiffs traveller that no orders had been placed with other persons. Subsequently the defendant was verbally informed that small orders had, been booked at 30s per dozen, and in consequence had asked for a reduction in the price for a large order. ■ A quotation of 27s 3d per dozen was given, and plaintiff received an order for twelve gross of cycle pumps, on the understanding that he would not supply the retail'trade in the North Island. Although the pumps, which were imported from Japan, were in good demand at the time, plaintiff took no other orders. The contract was entered into on the 16th May, 1918, but owing to shipping conditions the goods did not come to hand until April of this year. Meanwhile, the price of the pumps had fallen on account of the cessation of the war, it being possible to purchase the pumps in Wellington at 18s per dozen. ', The Magistrate said that the whole of the circumstances existing at the time' of the contract had to be taken. into consideration, as well as the evidence of the principal parties." There .was no anticipation that the altered conditions would have come about before the arrival of the goods. Defendant's rights had to be determined from the viewpoint of conditions as existing when the contract was made. The opinion of the Court was that the undertaking was collateral to the main contract, and subject to his right to fill the orders already taken. j[t was considered that ther% had been, no breach of contract, but assuming that there had been one it would be of a condition which amounted only to a warranty and did not confer a right upon defendant to repudiate the contract, but merely to claim damages for any losses sustained through such breach.

Judgment was given for plaintiff for £195 18s (amount of claim), with £14 4s costs.

At the hearing Mr. A. Gray, K.C., appeared for the plaintiff company and Mr. T. Neave for the defendant.