QUESTION OF EXCHANGE

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 29, 3 August 1921, Page 5

QUESTION OF EXCHANGE

A RESERVED JUDGMENT.

Reserved judgment was given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., this morning in the case of Ellis and Manton, Lid., v. the New ZeaTand Fruitgrowers' Federation, Ltd. In June, 1920, the defendants submitted to the plaintiffs an order for- the supply to the defendants of ten tons of wood-wool, to be traported to New Zealand. The order wts accepted in July, and the purchase price amounted to £275 a.i.f. Wellington. The woodwool was imported from Norway. The draft forwarded from Norway along with the bill of lading and other document*, was for a sum of £275, plus exchange £7 Is id. The defendants paid the £275, but declined to pay the £7 Is 4d, for which they denied any liability. , When the defendants obtained delivery <rf the wood-wool they caused a quantity to be weighed. They contended that tie weighty of the woodwool on arrival at Wellington wo* 1 ton 11-cwt 3q.r lllb short of the weight far which they paid. It was not made clear how the difference of weight arose, but the suggestionl was that the loss of weight was due to the evaporation of the moisture in the wood-wool. Plaintiffs claimed from th« defendants the sum of £7 1* id, boing the amount of the exchange on the draft; and the defendants counter-claimed the sum of £44 14s by -way of refund due to the short weight of the wood-wool received by them. ~ Both Cjuestioma of claim and oouterclaim, said has Worship, depended primarily upon a consideration of the true relationship that was created between the parties. Tho plaintiffs contended that they acted throughout purely as agents to bring about a contract between their principals in Norway (Messrs. Storm and Bull) as vendors and the defendants as pnrchSsers. The defendants contended that they bought the goods from the plaintiffs, and that the relationship created between the plaintiffs and defendants wae that of vendor and purchaser. Upon that issue his Worship found in favour Of the plaintiffs. Upon the true construction and the correspondence he thought the plaintiffs acted as agents, and not as principals, and looking at the contract in that view he was of the opinion that the defendautte' counter-claim must fail. Their remedy, if hey had one, was againat the principals with whom they contracted, Messrs. Storm and Bull. With regard to the claim, his Worship, thought that trader a c.i.f. contract, a purchaser Was liable to pay exchange. He must bear the cost of remitting the Bionoy to tho seller. The defendants, in his opinion, were liable to pay the amount of exchange which was n6W^in dispute.

judgment was given'for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, an 4 the defendants were non-sititod on tho counterclaim.

At tit© Iwaiing, Mr, H. IS. Anderson anpewnd far ttWnUifo, wid Ut, 1\