SALE OF METAL

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 283, 24 August 1940, Page 5

SALE OF METAL

Judgment Reserved

The hearing of the claim for £5Ol by Nelson Bros.. Ltd., against Richard Henry Nagle, public accountant, was continued in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). .. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, K.C., with him Mr. G 11. Al. Moir, appeared for plaintiff, mid Mr. G. G. G». Watson, with him Mr. H. Vantier, for defendant. Plaintiff alleged that in making certain sales of copper, defendant acted neg igentlv. arid in breach of hie duty as agent of plaintiff in that he did not secure on such sales the market price that he could have and should have obtained, and as a result of such negligence and branch of duty plaintiff suffered a loss of £5Ol. Mr. Watson, continuing his address to the Court, said that the only allegation made against defendant was negligence in selling below the market price; they were not charged with negligence in selling wholesale instead of retail. Counsel contended that there was no market price for copper in New Zealand, rhe only evidence given by plaintiff concerned .- tail market price. Nelson, Sen., had admitted that selling copper retail yas a matter of bargaining with the buyer Plaintiff, counsel contended, had failed to prove that there was a market price for copper in New Zealand, ™ in practice for a receiver or liquidatoi was to call tenders. Jenkins and Mack al resold all the metal tubing they I I bought to the Jones Metal Co., at t price they had paid for it. He asked the Court to take into consideration the lactors which confronted Nagle when In was compelled to sell wholesale. Na„ie was confronted with the grave spectre o a falling market, and the longer the stocks were held the higher the charges in connexion with them would mount. If Nagle had gone on retailing he would not have got as good a net result as h< eventually obtained for Ihe stock, as tlie wholesale sale carried no overhead charges. No wholesaler at that time could be expected to pay more than landed costs, and this, at least, Nagle had S °Counsel said that Nagle must be treated as the agent foi plaintiff company, but he submitted that the Court must rake a broad view oi the transaction. The extent of his agency consisted ot selling goods to pay the company’s debts, ami lie was reasonably expected to observe promptitude in dieposing <>l the -oods Nagle was bound at that tune to get the best possible prices for the goods to recover the capital Iris company had expended. He had only now got buck bis capital, but had not recovered interest or fees to which lie was entitled as receiver. Mr. O’Leary. for plainttfl company, submitted that authorities had laid down that an agent must act witli reasonable car id diligence. The facts of tlncase, counsel submitted, showed that defendant had not shown ordinary care, skill, and judgment. Had bo done so there would have been a surplus tor Nelson Bros. There was in. evidence ilmt. tlnre was a falling market, and it had not been proved that defendant even got cost prices for the goods sold. His method was wrong, and lie was negligent in not going to other firms other than .tonkins’miff Mack and the Jones Metal

' ' ilis Honour said that he would take time to consider his verdict.