SETTLEMENT REACHED

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 December 1938, Page 4

SETTLEMENT REACHED

RADIO SALES CLAIM. A settlement for the sum of £25 was reached between the parties in the Magistrate’s Court, Greymouth, yesterday afternoon, in the case, heard before Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M., in which Benjamin F. Hunter, radio serviceman, of Hokitika (Mr. C. R. McGinley), claimed £197/6/6 from Maurice Edward Spiers, radio dealer, of Greymouth (Mr. W. Douglas Taylor). The amount claimed was made up as follows: —Commission on sales of radio sets, £6l/12/-; expenditure on motorcar repairs, £3l/2/-; overtime, 558 hours, £lO4/12/6. The evidence of plaintiff was published in yesterday’s “Star.” Charles Francis, managing-director of Robert Francis, Ltd., Christchurch, said that the practice of payfiient of commission in regard to the sale of radio sets varied a great deal, according to the conditions of employment, whether as serviceman or salesman. In any case, the essential part of the business was to make sales. Witness understood that Hunter was to have charge of the business at Hokitika, under Spiers. Ronald Guthrie, Greymouth manager for Robert Francis, Ltd., who was previously employed by Spiers, said that he did all the books, and entered commission to Hunter at 5 per cent, on Hunter’s own sales. So far as he knew the commission was not paid to Hunter. Witness had never seen a notice posted, to the effect that commission would not be paid on shop sales or prospects. Spiers did mention that he intended to pay a bonus to Hunter, but he did not give any instructions about it. Witness was credited with 5 per cent, commission on any sales he made himself, and his petrol account was paid. Before closing the case for plaintiff, Mr. McGinley asked for leave to amend the claim concerning overtime, to provide that the amount was claimed for work done ovei’ and above the 40 hours per week at £5 per week. Mr. Taylor objected, on the ground that the arrangement was too indefinite, and that the contract had not been proved. The S.M. said he could not give permission to allow a new cause of action at this stage. It was too late, for one thing.

For the defence, Mr. Taylor said it was emphatically denied that any arrangement was made for payment regarding car repairs. It was improbable and unusual. Apart altogether from the question as to whether or not it was made, the evidence in support of that claim was so ephemeral that plaintiff could not possibly recover. Plaintiff was unable to indicate how the account was made up, except a general statement that it was money expended by him in repairs and running expenses, including tyres. Regarding the claim for overtime, Mr. Taylor submitted that the 558 hours was purely a guess. The S.M.: You need not bother yourself about the overtime. Referring to commission, Mr. Tay101’ said that, if plaintiff had a legal right, one would have expected him to come to Court a long time ago. The claim for commission was without any real merit at all. It might be true that commission was credited to plaintiff by Guthrie, but . certainly it was never paid, nor did Spiers in any way admit responsibility for payment. Generally, plaintiff’s case was of an unsatisfactory nature.

> DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE. Defendant, in the course of his evidence, said that he agreed to pay plaintiff £5 per week, and, provided the Hokitika branch was satisfactory, he would be prepared to pay him a bonus at the end of the year. At that stage, there was no mention of commission. The business at Hokitika was run very unsatisfactorily. Hunter would get fits of depression, and leave his work for periods. Witness had to plead with him to return to his job. His wages were never deducted while he was away from -work. Witness had never accepted liability for repairs to Hunter’s car, but merely for petrol and oil. Primarily, Hunter’s job was to effect radio repairs and installations, as he had a wireman’s license. There was no mention of commission until towards the end of 1936, when Hunter came to witness and said that his creditors were pressing him. Witness guaranteed the debts, and told Hunter that, if he “hopped into his job” properly, and sold sets after ordinary hours, he would be .paid commission. Hunter was told plainly that commission would not be paid on sales that were made in the shop, or sales made in normal working hours. A notice to that effect was posted over the desk in the office. Hunter left in August, 1937, and witness did not receive any claim from him until some months later. He regarded the claim as ridiculous. The next he heard of the mattei’ was when he got a summons.

At this stage, an adjournment was taken, with a view to giving an opportunity for the list of sales to be considered, from the standpoint of the commission claimed.

On resuming, Mr. McGinley said he had pleasure in stating that the matter had been settled, for £25. He asked that judgment be entered for plaintiff, for that amount. Mr. Taylor said that each party had agreed to pay its own costs. The S.M. congratulated the parties on reaching a settlement, and entered judgment for plaintiff, by consent, for £25.