CASH REGISTERS

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 146, 21 June 1916, Page 8

CASH REGISTERS

A TURNED-DOWN CONTRACT.

At the Supreme Court to-day, his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard a case in which the National Cash Register Company claimed from C. M. Ross and Co., of Palmerston' North, the sum of £1206, for alleged breach of contract. A counter-claim for the recovery of £120 and interest for deposit was also involved. Mr. T. Neave appeared for the Cash Register Company arid Mr. T. Young for C. M. • Ross and Co. A special jury of twelve was empanelled, Mr. Chas. Reid'being selected as foreman. - , ,

Mr. Neave, in opening the case for the plaintiff company, stated that Ross and Co., of Palmerston North, diapers, had placed an orderW/ith the National Cash Register Co. for ten cash registers, at a cost of £1260. A sum of £120 was paid as deposit, and the balance was to be paid on the delivery of the machines. The defendant company now sought to. repudiate the contract. The repudiation covered questions involving the construction of the machines, and other alleged disabilities. Plaintiffs complained that they had been put to expense completing the" contract and cabling to America for the machines. The local company had the sole agency for the registers in New Zealand, and were responsible to the parent company in Dayton, Ohio, for the cost of the machines ordered. Considerable expense attached to the sale of the machines, the agent who effected the sale, at a cost of considerable time and trouble, receiving a commission of 30 per cent.—£36l on- the order in dis : pute. The; prices of the machines had increased since the order was placed. . At this stage his Honour asked if the whole question was not one of-law.- He understood that it had been-set aside previously as a. case for argument. He oould not understand .why the country should be put to the expense of a jury trial if the point involved was simply one of law. ■■ . . .

Mr. Young stated that- the defence at law was that there had been no completion of contract. . . . ... . Mr. Neave admitted this, but stated that eiuce this arrangement had been arrived at a- bomb from the sky had fallen in the shape of a further charge of misrepresentation and. fraud.- This was filed while-the settling of a special case on questions of law was under consideration.

His Honour :. I thought, .the question, of law • should be first observed; Very .well! It is axurious position; but go on.

Mr. Neave continuing, dealt-.with extensive correspondence """between the parties referring to the contract and the alleged repudiation. He traced shortly the previous history.of the,case, where, -■the defendant company was ordered to -file a more explicit defence. • The second' .'-defence was to the effect that C. M.. -Jloss, managing .director,. had. no. autho-,

•rity to sign an order for a contract, and "that his signature "did; not -constitute a "contract. There, was-.no suggestion in :this second; defence of misrepresentation.' ?A month later a further third defence 'was filed, • claiming that there- was .no-■'.wit-ten "contract in terms of the Sale of ;Goods Act, and alleging misrepresentation.

",. W. B. Bennett, manager for the National Cash. Register Company, Wellington, gave long technical evidence to show .ihat the class of machine ordered by CRoss and Co. was not a " stock "" class, *but a "special" class—the first ordered 'in New Zealand. The cable sent to Dayton was in code, and specified exactly what was wanted. „ The machines were" specially constructed for Ross's assistants, • and would cover a staff of thirty-seven. .'He detailed the specialities. V His Honour: Apparently the machine is one of the ordinary ones, with special .features added. Mr. Neave :, That is so. . Witness, continuing, detailed the. alterations that would be necessary to make the registers suitable for sale on the ordinary market. The machines would have to be sent back to America for .alt-era* . tion. • .I- (Leff sitting.)