TASKS GO ASTRAY.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15768, 8 December 1916, Page 3

TASKS GO ASTRAY.

LOSS or CUSTOM ALLEGED

CHINA DEALERS' CLAIM

In the Magis'.rate'o Court ycsterdaj> before Mr 11. W. liishop. S.M.,

Arthur C'hatlc.s Nottingham and A\il-

iani Bryce Wilkin, executors and trustees of the estate of tho late John l'\

Puff. Eastern merchant, claimed from ,1 ohu Bates and Co., Ltd., china and crystal specialist?, the sum of £18 os 7d, the balance due on goods supplied to the defendants. The defendant firm entered a counter-claim for £-37 los.

Mr Hunter, in opening the case regarding the counter-claim, said that on April 13th,.191-5, DufT accepted an indent from Bates and. Co. for a consignment of china 'flower vases, etc. These wcrq ordered for spring window display purposes, and on the indent wcro the words "Arrive August, if possible; ur-

gent, delirery." The goods, however, did not arrive. In January last. :'omo employees of Bates and Co. saw in the windows of the D.I.C. some articles answering to ihoce ordered by Bates and Co. tSome of them were purchased from the D.1.C.. and were found to answer exactly to the goods which had never been delivered to Bates and Co. On being approached on the matter, Duff's manager admitted that part of the goods had been sold to the D.I.C. by mistake. Since the dat© of the. contract there had been an advance in the market, value of such goods of at least 33 l-3rd per cent., and the claim was for that ' increase, . for lost profit at the rate of oO per cent., which was a very fair figure for such goods, and for special damages £20. The goods, as previously mentioned, had been for a window display, which would, it was considered, have led to a profit not only on the sale of the articles in the window but on other, perhaps larger. . sales made to customers who were attracted inside the shop by the window display. There was, Mr Hunter continued, a second coursc of - action. Duff's firm hajJ accepted an indent in January. 1915. for a consignment of 36 dozen china cups and saucers, which had not yet been delivered, and it was considered that the delay was unreasonable. Since tho counter-eiaini had been filed, tin

goods had arrived, and Bates and Co. had been asked to accept them. Tinthey had agreed to do, but- claimed for the loss caused by tho delay.

John Edward Bates,, a director of John Bates and Co.. gave evidence on the linos of Mr Hunter's opening. Certain of the articles lie bought at the D.I.C'.. he said, were those made to

his own special design. On the prices to be charged. Bates and Co. would have made a profit of 170 per ccnt. on some of the articles and 110 per cent, on others.

"That's pretty tall, isn't it! - '" queried his Worship. The witness continued thai. 3."1 1-3 per cent, was a very moderate estimate of the .increase .in .market prices.

and 50 per ccnt. was a very fair profit to ask for. With regard to the cups a,nd' saucers, they were bought, a t Is per dozen,' and were now selling at 6s 9d, while the retail price was 12s

In answer to Mr Alpcrs witness admitted that £400 worth of goods had beefi purchased from Duff's firm, and £279 north had been returned. The goods were taken ou "salp or return.'' l!e-cxamincd bv Mr Hunter, witness said that had bis employees not noticed the goods iii the D.T.C. window, he vould. not have known that the goods had arrived.. ' John William Bates, ' sen., another director of John Bates and Co.. Ltd.. gave similar evidence. Speaking of the ,'WayVin which article's' :in. tho windows'. attracted custom, 1 he stated that on one occasion a. lady who wanted an article in the window valued at os 6d spent £'80- when she .got inside the shop- on another occasion an article valued at 18s resulted, in £190 being spent. ' \ •. . V George William Bennett, ,' indent agent, gave evidences as to the increase in trade prices of earthcrnwarc goods, etc., and in freight charges. " j Thomasino-Rogers, head, saleswoman for iliates and Co., and Amy Cutler, second saleswoman, gave evidence as to tho'Value of window goods in attracting customers inside, and the subsequent salo of valuable goods inside the shop. Mr Alpers. for the defence.' submitted that Duff had performed his duty regarding the transactions. Respecting the first claim, tho indent stated that "the goods'were "subjcct to approval." The defendants. maintained that the indent risks were purely tho concern of J. Duff, who knew that they wcro'all on ,his side, and therefore in-

cluded in the indent the words "if possible." Japan had just gone to war. and goods had been delayed owing to the shortage of freight for periods up to sixteen month*. Recently the freight difficulties had meen minimised,

and overdue goods hod been pouriny into the country.- He therefore submitted that Bates and Co. -were not entitled to damages, as the delay -was not Duff's fault. Greig haU erred in letting the D.I.C. have a. part of the goods, but had not tried to conceal Jlis-mistake from his employers. Only £13 worth of goods had been sold to the D.1.C., which v,as only a small part of the shipment, the balance of'which had not yet come to hand. If Bates and Co. could obtain damages, it would be only on tlie £13, and not- on the whole shipment. 'Iho g(>ods had increased by 33J-jner'cent, in "value, but the claim of Bates and Co. had been based on.a, wrong principle. Tho plaintiff firm stated that'its profit was o0 per cent., and claimed thi. j , but it also claimed a profit of 33J per ecnt. owing to the rising market. He submitted that the oO per 'cent., should include tho per cent. If Bates and Co. placed a greater value on tho goods caused by their advertising qualities, the fact should have been communicated to Mr Duff in writing. The value of the goods ought to be calculated on tho value in the indent, plus ordinary trade profit. He would call evidence to show that till the [roods sold to the D.I.C. were porous. That would reduce to a merely nominal amount the damages if given in respect of this sale. James Greig, isalesmau for the cxccutor» of John ]■'. Duff, said that the words "subject to approval," referred to the whole indent. All Bates'.-, indents had uow come to hand, the greatest delay being■ fourteen months. He obtained no reason for this delay from Japan. Duff and Co. had experienced in the last, two years no increase in prices, and invoices made out. in I91t) for goods of ihe same number corresponded in price with those of l'?ll. Freight had increased from -40s '3d to BG>. .Bd, -but v, hen the poods of Untes <ind Co. were due it. was 4 J 3» Sd. An order for £13 would havo taken up about a ton. He sold the goods to the D.I.C. by error, as there was a rush of orders, and he opened up the •ndent. eosted the goods, and put them into stock. They were, then purchased at an iucrca&c ol £1 los fd.. On discovery of the mistake, he offered to cable* to Japan, but- the offer was not accepted, for the reason that Bates and Co. considered tho goods useless, as they had .been exhibited elsewh'ere. Hurdley's had exhibited similar goods for the last three years. Some of the goods had been taken by Bates, junior, who refused, however, to regard them as part of the indent, The cups liad been offered-at 4s a dosen. Ruby "Whitamanv-accountant to Duff and Co., confirmed the. statement that the goods wero invoiced at the same price as two years azp. Ethel Bowers,-in -fp.are* r { tho «rr>»kpry department D.I.C'., said that's lis iQL th.t l' rr P, and the

food,s she had purchased from Tuff and Co. had boon found porous, but they had not been warranted non-porous. Other indent? had Wn slow in coming to hand, and took on the average from six to eight months. AViliiam Minson said that his firm had Japanese poods coming in on almost. overv boat. From six to eight months was the average timo for the arrival of goods. but, longer delavs, sometimes extending twelve months, had been experienced. There aad been an increase irr the price of Japanese goods. Roughly speaking, the froicht on a package of about a toll had increased by about. 30s. The Magistrate said that lie could not attemnt to fix damages in respect, to the Ics* of custom, and judgment would bo for the plaintiff on the main claim for £.'7B ;»s 7d, and costs, and on the counter-claim for ~2-_i and costs.