JUDGMENT GIVEN IN YOYO CLAIM

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29801, 18 April 1962, Page 12

JUDGMENT GIVEN IN YOYO CLAIM

The Coca-Cola Export Corporation now owed nothing to the Christchurch firm of Hammer and Barrow, Ltd., for the price of yoyos and strings sold and delivered under a contract, said Mr Justice Richmond in a 67page reserved judgment given yesterday bn a claim for £14,196 The amount was claimed for the cost of the yoyos Hammer and Barrow, Ltd., made in 1960 for a proposed national sales campaign advertising coca-cola, and included damages tor the non-acceptance of the remainder of an order of 200,000 yoyos which it had been asked to fulfil. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation was named as first defendant, and the Northern Bottling Company Ltd., was named as second defendant. Both were represented by Mr J. D. Dalgety. Duncan, Russell, and

Ives, registered in Venezuela, the company promoting the yoyo advertising campaign, was named as third defendant. It was represented by Mr J. N. Matson. His Honour said in his judgment that the termination of the yoyo campaign was the natural and probable result of the breaches of contract by Hammer and Barrow, Ltd. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation now owed nothing to the firm, and the plaintiffs’ action tailed completely against it. He said he was satisfied that at least 80 per cent of the yoyos made failed to comply with the contract requirements.

“The whole history of the matter was. in my opinion, extremely unsatisfactory and disquieting from the point of view of Coca-Cola. "I attach great importance to the fact that the yoyos had been ordered for a special form of advertising campaign. This campaign involved the expenditure of considerable time and effort on the part of Coca-Cola and its several bottling companies, and on the part of Duncan, Russell. "Moreover, the campaign involved the prestige of CocaCola as between itself and its bottling companies, retailers, and the public. ■' "I am of the opinion that the whole circumstances and history of the matter justified Coca-Cola in rescinding the contract so far as future deliveries were concerned, rattier than submit to the risk of having put upon them further unsatisfactory deliveries.

"It follows that the plaintiff’s claim for damages for non-acceptance of further deliveries under the contract must fail." Mr Justice Richmond adjourned Hammer and Barrow. Ltd.’s claim for £4903 4s from the Northern Bottling Company, Ltd.—in respect of a cheque which was stopped—and also the counter-claim by the CocaCola Export Corporation against Hammer and Barrow. Ltd. “This will enable Mr Dalgety to call additional evidence in connexion with the claim against Northern Bottling and will also enable me to hear any additional submissions which counsel may wish to' make in connexion with that claim, or with the claim of consequential loss contained in the counter-claim,” said his Honour.