SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27502, 9 November 1954, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

ACTION OVER SALE OF BREAD ROUND CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM A claim and counter-claim over the sale of a bread round in Lyttelton are being heard before Mr Justice Adams and a jury in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are Elmo Cecil Carston, a clerk, and Curtis Wright, a bread salesman, who are represented by Mr D. W. Russell. The defendant is Norman lan Anderson, a driver, of Wellington, who is represented by Mr K. w. Frampton. The statement of claim said that by an agreement of December 2, 1952, the defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiffs a bread round in Lyttelton £ 9as . 1^- pa >' a,b!e >7 a deposit of £350 and £3O a month With interest at 7 per cent The statement said that the defendant paid £250 as part of the deposit but had paid nothing more. The plaintiffs claimed £735 as owing on the business, £95 13s lOd as interest, £2O said to have been received by the defendant on behalf of the

oy me aerenaant on Denali of the plaintiffs, and £8 14s 9d paid by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant. The defendant is counter-claiming for £350 -os damages, alleging that the plaintiffs by their agents misrepresented the business. The action was one for breach of contract, said Mr Russell, outlining the plaintiffs’ case to the jury. The defendant in his counter-claim alleged that he was induced to purchase the business by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiffs or their agents. The plaintiffs bought the bread round in Lyttelton in February, 1952, but . it was not a success from their point . of view because they had to pay a driver £l4 a week and there was ih- I

creased competition. They considered ? it a good business from the owner- , driver point of view. In August, 1952, ] the plantiffs put the business in the hands of W. A. Pickup and Company to sell. It was first advertised as , showing a profit of £27 a week, but ; later was reduced because the sales ; of bread had decreased. In Novem- , ber, 1952. it was advertised at £985, ( a four days a week round, with a ( profit of £2O a week for an owner- ( driver. i

driver. Weekly Sales Anderson saw Carston in November, 1952. and was told that the sales were 950 large loaves a week, on which the gross profit was fid a loaf, said Mr Russell. Carston said that as a one-man business it should make a net profit of £2O a week. It was agreed that the motor-van was too light for the job and a more suitable one was bought. The £250 part deposit paid by Anderson, plus £lBO lent by Carston went to the purchase of this other van. The agreement was that Anderson's father was to give a chattel security over the van, but that was not done. Anderson was taken on the round for a week before he took over the business. He started on his own three days before Christmas, one of the worst times of the year. On December 27, 1952, Anderson and his father went to Carston and said that Anderson was not, going to take over the business as it had been grossly misrepresented, said Mr Russell. Carston denied the allegation. Anderson carried on the round until August 28, 1953, when he walked out of the business. He still had the van. Mr Russell said that evidence would be given that Anderson did not keep a regular time for his delivery o* bread, but was very slack with the round. Evidence was given by Carston; by William Albert Pickup, a land agent;

and Hector Prescott Sunderland, a baker. Case for Defence Mr Frampton told the jury that Anderson would say that in November, 1952, he saw an advertisement offering a bread round for sale at £895 with a van in good order and a clear profit of £22 a week. He went to Pickup and Company and was told that the correct price was £985. He was told that the profit was £2l a week and assumed it was clear profit. He went out on the round one day and then said he did not want to take the van as he did not think it suitable. Carston said he would agree to the van not going with the business. Anderson asked for the books and was told that the only one was the bread delivery book. Another van was bought. Anderson had one week’s free ■ introductory service. He would say that bread was left over each day and it was taken back to Carston’s house. Anderson began on his own on December 22, 1952. and at the end of the week a lot of bread was left over, said Mr Frampton. He became suspicious that the profit was not £2l a week or anything like it. With his father and brother he went to see Carston and told him the business was not as represented and he did not intend to continue with it. Anderson continued to carry on the business so as not to embarras Sunderlands, the bakers. Eventually he stopped the delivery of bread. The net profit on the round worked out at £7 8s 8d a week, said Mr Frampton. Anderson gave evidence on those lines. Peter Bruce Anderson, a brother of the defendant, gave supporting evidence. Noel Robert Searell, a public accountant, was giving evidence when the Court adjourned until this morning.