CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 237, 4 October 1916, Page 8

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLES^^: Ati interesting case, i&jk mportant point of tie law of ivas before Mr- C. C. Kettle at :"Hg§ Magistrate's Court yesterday. ;iffe were Alpe Bros-, of A '" r ' HM iuce brokers, who claimed a Bam of-»|gy-from the Port Albert sociation. Limited, of Port (j. L. Alderton appeared fop tiffs, and Mr- J. G. Haddow for tWj!|||| fendantsPlaintiffs , statement set out t£m||iS certain letters and telegrams thatjaa|ra between tie parties in April, 1916,'t|»V defendant company contracted to 'dejntf £' to tie plaintiffs at Auckland than the end of May, 1916, SOO nitjJMm Doughertv apples at a price of e/fijSfi ease. On -<lay 11, 19i6. tie defend coaipany notified the plaintiffs tii£?j|| refused* to deliver the apples in nvcaiian?e with the terms of the unless plaintiffs guaranteed that l - ttgf fruit tras for export. The not delivered. The sum ■■.<*|iißjß claimed by the plaintiffs 'was ma<fct|j||| of the difference .between the price -of C/C per -ease and the Auefclt>|;;v market price at the end of : M*y-3aitfiji| S/ti per case on the 800 cases mentioned in the contractThe defence eubmitted that. time of entering into the contTijjaißjja defendant company understood, iiiiß thought it a condition of the contrive-' that the apples were intended f oj ttjl; London - market. The crop" «f Dougherty apples at Port Albert; ireijjirg very large one, and-it was with the' Mi*! of obtaining an outlet-for the &Sit ; .ia' the London market that the cogfawlV was entered into. . - Mr. Alderton admitted that tin's intended to export the fruit ;«iSg the bargain was made, but there •was nothing in tne negotiiiiiiii| between the parties making the espjivf tation of the fruit a condition contract. 3lr. Haddois- contended the contract was as one 'between two parties i'sfiSM different . understanding of its Mribpiij and tierefore could not be enforwt Tbe question for the Court Tvas tcJS^@ it was a condition of tie the apples were for sale in the market. The magistrate held that it intfiffi lished hy the evidence and the '-'?**■!■■ pondence that It was a term of t}ie>am tract tliat the fruit should 'be *old bought for export to London. ' fii* jfitft opinion, Mr. Alpe'e intimaition- tJuit; , would not "be bound Tjj an-obtioa» of the contract justified the liefeßduT- , company in declining to complete" tit sale. Plaintiff would be nonsuit*! " Costs and witnesses , expenses " •wepj allowed to the defendants.