Supreme Court Decision Reserved In Yoyo Case

Press, Volume C, Issue 29662, 4 November 1961, Page 14

Supreme Court Decision Reserved In Yoyo Case

After the completion of counsel's submissions, Mr Justice Richmond in the Supreme Court yesterday reserved his decision in the claim by a Christchurch firm for £14,196, the cost of yoyos it manufactured last year for a proposed national sales campegin advertising coca cola. The hearing lasted nine days. His Honour said it might be impossible for him to give his decision until after the Christmas vacation because of the heavy Supreme Court business during the 'present sessions. } The Christchurch company, | Hammer and Barrow, Lrtd. (Mr P. T. Mahon) claimed I £14,196 as the cost of yoyos (which it manufactured and delivered, and also damages for the non-acceptance of the remainder of the order of 200.000 which it had been asked to fulfil.

The Coca Cola Export Com. pany is named as first defendant and the Northern Bottling Company, second defendant Both are represented by Mr J. D. Dalgety. Duncan, Russel, and Ives, Ltd, advertising campaign promoters, of Venezuela, is named as third party and is represented by Mr J. N. Matson.

Continuing his final address yesterday Mr Matson said that right from the beginning it had been made clear to the plaintiff company that the standard of article required by Coca Cola was strict.

Five thousand yoyos were made well under the required size before an attempt was made to correct that fault. Although a sample was finally produced which was adequate in appearance so far as Coca Cola was concerned, the yoyos which were delivered in Auckland for distribution did not come up to the sample standard. The yoyos were not up to the standard of those submitted for inspection on August 17, and as time went on the defects became graver, Mr Matson said. There was evidence of roughness in the grooves and edges, lack of gloss, and a very unattractive broken grain or pitting of the wood. Plaintiff’s Submissions

Mr Mahon said the defendants had failed to prove the campaign had to be abandoned because of the quality of the yoyos. On the facts of the case it was virtually impossible for them to prove this. The only evidence that seemed to point to a proportion of the yoyos not being up to standard was that of the witness Cave, who had said he had segregated an average of four to six yoyos out of each box. Cave had said this number was about 20 per cent., and that he had passed that rest for retailing.

"There is internal conflict in the defence evidence in that Cave said he had put the discarded yoyos aside as rejects, whereas other evidence was that the defendants had sanded and re-strung the rejected yoyos.” Mir Matson said Coca Cola had sent a written contract to the plaintiff which stipulated that the quality was to be as specified by Murray, the vice-president of the Duncan company. Murrey submitted he saw the whole process oT rnanu-

facture of the yoyos on visits to the plaintiffs factory, and there would have been between 20,000 and 30,000 yoyos in and around the factory in various stages of manufacture at the time.

The contract was a sale of yoyos by description, and the plaintiff company complied with that description, Mr Mahon submitted.