ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21903, 2 October 1936, Page 7

ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT

a c '♦ t CLAIM' AGAINST CITY FIRM « FAILS i 3 e Croydon Lee, agent, of Christchurch (Mr H. O. Jacobsen), was non-suited 1 on a claim for £34 12s from Tucks, s’ Ltd., provision merchants, by Mr H. A. Young. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Plaintiff stated that on May 20, 1935, i the defendant company entered into a n certain written agreement for advers Using whereby the company agreed to •I pay plaintiff a total of £93 2s for a series ot four full-page advertisements - in a four-page publication called “Advance Shopping News." Plaintiff duly printed and published the publication, and was always ready and willing to accept the advertisements. Plaintiff added that the defendant company t wrongfully refused to supply its copy ■ for the first issue of the- sefies, and f later, on or about July 7, 1935, repudii ated its contract; so that plaintiff was ? compelled to obtain substitutes; for the i space to fulfil his own contract with s three other advertisers. • Because of defendant’s . alleged 5 breach of the contract, plaintiff stated, ■ plaintiff had lost £24 12s, the difteri ence between the amount he would ■ have received under the contract and ■ the amount received after obtaining substitutes. He was claiming this sum with £lO general damages. • Plaintiff said in evidence that he had | called six times for the copy, but it had i not been available. It was absurd to suppose that he would not have made an effort to collect it to avoid the 'difficulty of obtaining substitutes. “Vagueness” of Contract Mr J. D. Hutchison (for Tucks, Ltd.) contended that plaintiff had not advised , defendants that the copy for the advertisements had to be supplied by a certain date. Mr W. Tuck, managing director of the defendant company, stated that it had been arranged that plaintiff should let him know when he wanted the copy. He could have fulfilled the contract, and never had any intention of breaking it. Plaintiff had never come for the copy. Mr Tuck said'in evidence that it was arranged that he was to prepare the copy. Plaintiff was to let him know when the copy was wanted. On May 28 he had told plaintiff that he would not be able to let him have the copy for a fortnight, as witness- would be preparing for the anntial balance. He had promised the copy by the middle of June. As';the first issue was to be by the said of June, witness thought he would have ample time. Plaintiff had not called on him for the copy, as witness expected. It would ' have taken 48 hours to prepare . the copy if plaintiff had called for it. 1 ..Mr Jacobsen submitted that witness had not been able, to prepare his copy in time, and had been annoyed to see a competitor included in the issue of the publication. This had been the cause of his writing to plaintiff claimin'* that plaintiff had broken his contract by including another grocer’s advertisement Witness: That is a'fact. One has to admit it. Plaintiff was non-suited, the magistrate saying that, considering the vagueness of the contract, the,..normal procedure! would have been for plaintiff to give notice of When the copy would be required, stating i that failing compliance, the company would be charged with any deficiency due to the obtaining of substitutes. He. saw) . no reason to disbelieve the story of I j either party. - 1