BREACH OF CONTRACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 72, 25 March 1936, Page 7

BREACH OF CONTRACT.

FARMER SUED BY COMPANY.

NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY. (From Our Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. Before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Hamilton Magistrate's Court yesterday, the Alfa Laval Separator Company, Limited (Mr. Hammond), claimed £31 damages for breach of contract to purchase a separator from a farmer, Alan McKenzie Martin (Mr. Tompkins). Horace Stewart, a serviceman of the plaintiff company, gave evidence that on January 17 a contract was drawn up with defendant for the conditional purchase of 41 separator, but on the next day defendant told him, after an inspec. tion and report on his old machine, previously condemned by Stewart, by a Government dairy instructor, Mr. J. G. Ward, he had decided to refuse to accept the new machine.

To Mr. Tompkins, witness said he had visited Martin's farm at Martin's request for the purpose of inspecting a defective machine that' had been giving trouble. He found the separator considerably worn, and told Martin there were three courses open to him to spend a small sum on very temporary repairs, to spend from £7 to £8 on an overhaul that would make the machine last two or three seasons, or purchase a new machine. . , . ~ Mr. Tompkins submitted that the con. tract had been induced by tation on Stewart's part,and defendant accordingly had the right t0 before the agreement f t " Martin had been led by Stewart to - believe that the old separator was practically useless would make t \ e „Twardlng ea of fl and costs to the plaintiff company, the magistrate said that in spite of the i evidence given on both sides, he was not satisfied that there had been any real misrepresentation on the part of Stewart. He did not feel justified, however in awarding any more in the way of damages, although Martin was definitely guilty of breach of contract.