SUPREME COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20864, 6 August 1931, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM BY H.Z. EXPRESS COMPANY i STORAGE OF MOTOR GOODS In tlio Supremo Court this morning His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy beard a claim by the New Zealand Express Company Ltd. against M. Mich elm and Co.' Ltd. for c£-197 16s 3d for services rendered in the storage and delivery of tyres, inner tubes, and motor accessories.

Mr A. C. Stephens appeared for the plaintiff company and Mr \V. J. Sim (Christchurch) for the defendant company. Air Stephens, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said the claim was for remuneration for the storage of motor tyres and tubes under contract made between the parties in November, 1929. The New Zealand Express Company had acted for the Michelin Company in this way for about twenty years. The Michel in Company, of Franco, was a large manufacturer of motor tyres and tubes and other motor accessories, which were sent to various parts of the world. Different agreements between the companies had been in force from time to time. The last agreement was in the form of a letter, typewritten in France, and dated August 26, 1927, this being received by the Express Company on January 9, 1929. The agreement provided for a yearly period, it being provided that it was renewable from year to year until cither one of the parties acquainted the other with an intention to terminate it. Such notice had to be given in writing three months before. . ,

The Express Company became dissatisfied, said counsel, for various reasons with the work and with the remuneration, and on Juno 24, 1929. the general manager of tho Express Company gave notice of termination of the agreement. Tho result of correspondence by cable was to indicate that tho Michelin Company was prepared to accept certain conditions for a new contract, hut tho Express Company adhered to its previous notice of termination. The Express Company undertook to carry on tho work till the arrival in New Zealand of a representative of the Michelin Company named Stanton, the Express Company binding itself in an informal wav to continue the work till Mr Stanton'arrived, when negotiations would bo entered into for a fresh contract. Stanton met Mr Duthie, general manager of the Express Company, about tho middle of 1929, and Mr Duthie pointed out that the Express Company was not prepared to carry on under anew contract without increased remuneration, which Stanton said could not be paid. Negotiations readied a deadlock, though it was agreed the Express Company should carry on till tho end of March, 1930. The case for the plaintiff, proceeded counsel, was that the arrangement between Mr Duthie and Mr Stanton amounted to a six months’ contract on tho terms of the previous contract, subject to such modifications as were necessary to render the contract applicable to the period of- six months. That arrangement was carried on exactly as before, and at tho end of March, 1930, the stocks were handed over to the Michelin Company. At that date the tyro covers in stock were 13,275, and the tubes 12,347. Tho plaintiff company claimed payment at the rate of 2s for covers in stock and 2ld for tubes m stock. Tho defendant company had paid Is 3d for covers and 2d for tubes. The remuneration provided for under the original agreement was 4s for tyre covers up to 50,000, and 2s Od over 50.000. The paragraph relating to remuneration had to bo read in conjunction with the paragraph which provided for a yearly period. The effect of the combining of tho two paragraphs was for a yearly period in which 4s was paid in respect of tyre covers delivered up to 50,000. For covers over 50,000 2s (id was paid in the twelve months. With tho commencement of a new period tho number went back to zero again, tho period commencing on October lof each year. Difficulty arose in connection with the words “ tho expired year.” The plaintiff claimed that the words “ tho expired year ” must bo modified to read “ expired period.’’ The effect of the modification was to giro tho plaintiff the full rate of 2s a tvro and 2|d a tube on the stocks at March 31, 1930. If tho modification wore not made and any period of twelve months taken, tho plaintiff could not get more than was paid except in regard to tho tubes. Mr Stephens said that tho statement of defence was to the effect that there was no agreement, in which case a reasonable rate was payable, or that in the alternative the agreement was to pay at the lower rate on the covers and tubes in stock at the end of March 1930. After the stock was delivered a statement was rendered by the Express Compaiiv claiming commission at the rate of*2B and 2RI. Lengthy correspondence took place, the result -of which wus that both parties maintained their ground, but that Is 3d a ewer and 2d a tube was. accepted by the ohuntiff company without prejudice. The claim now made was ior Jd on each of 132,275 covers, and Id on each of 12.347 tubes. . Evidence in support of the claim was o-iven by Robert Thomas Duthie, general manager of tho New Zealand Express Company, and James Dunnett, tho manager of the Wellington branch of the Express Company. The case was proceeding tins afternoon.