PETROL DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 46, 23 February 1934, Page 11

PETROL DISPUTE

REFUSAL TO SUPPLY CASE ON APPEAL An appeal from the judgment of Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M., in which ho awarded £160 12s Cd damages against tho Shell Oil Company of New Zealand, Ltd., in an action arising out of the refusal of the company to supply Evan Gethring, garage proprietor of Upper Hutt, with petrol, is being heard by Mr. Justice MacGregor at the Supreme Court today. . Iv the Lower Court, Gcthring stated that, having obtained an option over a petrol tank and pump, he approached the defendant company through its traveller, Matheson, to arrange for supplies of petrol. Matheson advised him that the company would be pleased to supply, and he accordingly purchased the tank and pump, and had them installed at Upper Hutt. Matheson and the company's fitter approved, and calibrated the tank, and Matheson signed him up under a x^ump-hiring agreement, which, however', was not signed on behalf of the company. After making the first supply tho company refused to carry out the contract further, and the only reason he could obtain for the company's attitude was that of opposition from other customers of the company. He made every endeavour to obtain further supplies from the company, and since the company's refusal to supply he had been unablo to obtain supplies from any other company carrying on business in Wellington. The Magistrate, in his judgment said he was satisfied that plaintiff did all that could reasonably be expected of him to procure supplies from defendant company thereafter, and to make known to them that ho was willing to carry out his part of tho agreement, and that ho desired supplies from them. Tho company refused to supply him, and.he was unsuccessful, in procuring supplies elsewhere. He (Mr. Barton) was" quite satisfied that the defendants broke their agreement with the plaintiff and refused to supply him with petrol because they were afraid to face the consequent loss of the custom of other purchasers, of tlieir petrol in Upper Hutt. : : . When the matter camo before Mr. Justice MacGregor today, Mr. T. ,P. Cleary, who appeared for the Shell Company, said that tho appeal was based on two grounds. The first was that there was not sufficient evidence to show a binding contract. The second was that the parties had not fixed any period for! the making jof-supplies, and the arrangement fell short of a contract. Moreover, ho-said, if there was a contract it was not in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds. Mr. D. W. Virtue, who appeared for Gethring, contended that the Magistrato was amply justified in finding that there was a binding-contract, and that there were no grounds'for invoking the; doctrino of the Statute of Frauds.

Legal argument is being heard.