QUESTION OF DEPOSIT

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 113, 13 May 1921, Page 8

QUESTION OF DEPOSIT

AN INTERESTING POINT DECIDED.

Mr. W. G. Riddell. S.M., .delivered reserved judgment in the Magistrate's Court to-day in tho caso of Robert do B. Hovell, Tolaga Bay, • solicitor (Mr. O. C. Mazongarb) against Levin' and Co., agents for tho Shaw, Savill, and Albion. Company (Mr. H. E. Evans), on a claim for £7, being balance of a deposit of £17 10s, paid by plaintiff, to defendant, on account ,of a reserved passage from Now Zealand to England by the Arawa, which reservation was cancelled by plaintiff on 19th April, 1920. Plaintiff callod at Levin and Co.'s office.; and there arranged1 that the berth should be Teservod on the alleged understanding that plaintiff could cancel it at a,ny time, without liability, on giving reasonable notice, and it w-as alleged' that a month's notice Svas arranged as sufficient. Plaintiff paid Levin and Co. £17 10s, being a quarter of tho passage money. On 29th_ March, 1920, Levin and Co.; wrote to plaintiff, and informed,1 him, that the Arawa would probably sail from, New Zealand about the- end of June or the. beginning of July, and it might be late in July, On 19th April tho plaintiff replied that Miss Hovell did not propose to return to England just then, that he relinquished tho reservation for the- paeage. in the Arawa, and asked for the refund of the £17 10s. To this Levin and Co. responded by advising the cancellation and remitting. a cheque' for £10 10s, being tho deposit loss 10 per cent, oh the passage money. Plaintiff protested,against tho deduction of 10 per cent., and pointed out that a month's notico would relieve him of all liability in, the matter. . The Magistrate, in reviewing the case, said it was admitted by Levin and Co.'s booking cleric that some discussion took place concerning- the cancellation of tho contract, and the.. evidence warranted the conclusion that the cancellation was subject to reasonable notice. There was no evidence of "Levin and 'Co. advising plaintiff that any part of thn deposit would be forfeited. As the conditions under which the contract was agreed to bo cancelled ■were fulfilled by plaintiff, Levin and Co. had no authority to retain any part of it in payment of .their commission. "Where both'_ parties come to an agreement regarding' a particular passage," said Mr. Riddel!, "and make it subject to a condition on tho giving of Teasonablo notice by the intending passenger and nothing 'definite is said about the deposit paid, then, in my opinion, for the acceptance of tho cancellation, both parties must bo ■j>iaced in statu quo, and the deposit ehould 'bo returned to'the passenger." Judgment was given for plaintiff for £7, and costs £2 18s 6d.