WHOLESALE PRICE OF MILK.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 213, 7 September 1921, Page 9

WHOLESALE PRICE OF MILK.

PRODUCERS V. VENDORS. Mr. 11. \v. Bundle, S.M., read a decision lit the Magistrate's Court, in the of ilill Brothers, of Hobsonville (.Mr. F. ('. Jordan), against the Takaimiia Dairy Company (Mr. A. H. JohnStone), claim .£B3 9/2. The dispute was in respect to the price of milk supplied under agreement. This provided the rate was to be the Board of Trade price. The dispute was as to what that price! was. Plaintiffs claimed that on the date in quest ion the price was wholesale 1/4 a million the months August to April, and 1/S per gallon for the winter months, May to July, retail 8d per quart summer months, and 9d in winter months. The- defendant company denied that the Hoard of Trade prices meant euch definite prices ac stated, and that the wholesale rates of 1/4 and 1/8 were aubject to revision. The 1/4 was paid during the summer months, and the retail price to the public was Sd per quart. On May 1 the retail price was Taieed to 9d per quart. Mr. Bundle said it was necessary to determine, (a) whether prices fixed by the Board of Trade in August, 10-20, were the Board of Trade prices under the agreement for the year ending July 31; (b) "Whether such prices were in fact altered during that period." Hie Worship pointed out that the Board of Trade did not actually fix the price formally under the Board of Trade Act, but intimated that co long ac the prices to the public did not exceed a certain sum the board would not take action. His Worship said he though the wholesale prices 1/8 and 1/4 must be taken to be the Board of Trade prices, as understood by all parties in the milk trade on that date. The board in error assumed a certain etate of affaire for a year ahead, and fixed the pricee accordingly. Mr. Bundle intimated that he would not enter up judgment on the claim until the counter-claim had been heard. •Mr. Bundle considered that both parties to the contract understood on August 20 the Board of Trade prices to be 1/4 for the summer and 1/8 for the winter months. Those prices were not altered when the winter season started on May 1, therefore he thought the producers were entitled to ciaim the sameHe came to that conclusion with some regret, as he thought this was a matter in which the vendors were actuated by a desire that the price should not be raised to the public. The Board of Trade appreciated that fact, and tried to arrange a settlement. The milk vendors were placed in the unfortunate position of having during the month of May to pay the producer's winter prices while charging the publia summer prices.