User accounts and text correction are temporarily unavailable due to site maintenance.
×
Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BIG CLAIM FAILS

INTERRUPTED CONTRACT

TIMBER MERCHANTS AND PREE3- / ING COMPANY.

. A claim for £6241 12s lOd in, respect of an interrupted contract between. Jackson and Co., • timber merchants, of Timaru, and the South Canterbury Cooperative Freezing Company, Ltd., was the subject of a judgment delivered by the aotyng-tChief Justice, Mr. Justice &im, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, to-day. '..,.-' The defendant freezing company had arranged to take a big cpnsignment of Oregon timber for use in the construction of a new works at Washdyke, three miles north, of Timaru, but declined to accept delivery when the timber, came to hand chiefly on the ground that delivery was not made within reasonable time of the date agreed upon, December or January last, ~ The vessel carrying the timber arrived inVTinwu on the 28th May. The pjain- . tiffs on the 30th May gave notice to •the.defendants of the arrival of;the timber, and on the same day the defendant company gay« notice that it would not take delivery of the timber. - The timber was landed, but the defendants refused to accept delivery of it, and the plaintiffs then brought the action to recover damages for breach of ' contract. The case was heard before Mr. Joistice Herdman in Timaru, and, after all the evidence1 had been taken, the motions for judgment made by the plaintiff1 and defendant respectively were removed into Higher Court v .. •,..' '!".',Z'i~- .

The Court held that time waa'the essence, of the contract, and that the plaintiff was bound to deliver the timber in December or January. Before the plaintiffs, therefore, could recover damages for non-acceptance, they must establish that the defendants were. bound tp accept delivery when the tjmb,er ws« landed, but. such, an undertaking the Court did.not find. ,It rujeij, therefpre, that the plaintiffs had -.fpiled to1 prpye readiness or' willingness to perform the contract with the defendant 'Iconipariy, and accordingly judgment wae giyen. for the latter company with costs, disbursements, and other expenses. '.'■" Messrs. A. Gray, I£.C* and A. Pop? nelly appeared for the plaintiffs, and Messrs.. M. Myers, and,Campbell for.the defendants. ■ . '

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19211008.2.51

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 86, 8 October 1921, Page 5

Word Count
344

BIG CLAIM FAILS Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 86, 8 October 1921, Page 5

BIG CLAIM FAILS Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 86, 8 October 1921, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert