Contravention of Price Control Regulations

Manawatu Times, Volume 70, Issue 280, 27 November 1945, Page 8

Contravention of Price Control Regulations

CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST FOUR CITY FIRMS. A series of charges in respect of contraventions of the Control of Prices kaiergency Regulations 1939 were ktougni by the Price Tribunal against Palmerston North business firms in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. C. C. Marsack S.M. Goldfinch and Cousins Ltd. were Charged (a) that they offered for sale an oily canvas coat at £5 Is 6d, such price being in excess of the selling price approved in respect of the sale of such goods; (b) offering to sell a man’s suit at £1- 3s 6d; and (c) a man's suit at £l4 12s 9d. They pleaded guilty to each charge. Mr. H. R. Cooper, who appeared for the Price Tribunal in each instance, outlined the nature of the charges and the amount of the overcharge. For defendant company, Mr. A. M. Ongley submitted that the suits were purchased before February last and were correctly priced in February. When the Tribunal notified an alteration in the marking down of the percentage allowed above the cost price, linns were given until April to amend markings on stocks. In marking down their stocks, the company had missed the two suits. They were not offered for sale in the ordinary way in that the inspector had visited the shop and seen the suits but had not asked to buy them at the prices shown. Had somebody asked to buy the suits, the discrepancy in prices would have been noticed and the error rectified. The oily coat was one on a rack containing a large number of such coats. The others were all marked at the correct price of 91/6 but a clerk had written this on one ticket as £5 Is 6d. The Magistrate intimated that he accepted the company’s explanation, and expressed himself as satisfied that there had been no deliberate attempt to defeat the Tribunal’s price orders. At the same time there was a definite obligation on all storekeepers and retail merchants to see that the regulations were complied with. When they were not complied with, there must be a penalty. On the first charge he inflicted a line of £lO, with costs 10s, solicitor’■ fees £3 3s. On each of the other two charges he imposed a fine of £2, with costs 10s and solicitor ’s fees £1 Is. Price of Furniture. The Premier Drapery Coy. Ltd. pleaded guilty to two charges (a) offering to sell a dining-room suite at £6O 6s, and (b) a maple bedroom suite at £Bl lbs. Mr. Cooper mentioned that the approved price in respect of the first was £66 3s and £76 14s Id in respect of the second. For defendant company, Mr. L. Laurenson said that there had been three separate variations of the price orders since August. The company had made genuine attempts to comply with the Tribunal’s price orders, but the firm had been engaged with annual balances and stocktaking, and the two suites referred to had escaped attention. The inspectors had spent a considerable time in the shop premises, and they had been able to find only the two errors. He suggested that it was a case in which a warning would be sufficient. The articles were not utility ones, but were essentially luxury items. Evidence was given by W. M. Sexton, managing director of P.D.C., who told the Magistrate that the suites had been correctly charged previously but had not been changed to conform with the new order. His company had been exceptionally busy at the time when the new price order was received, and the two suites in this class had been missed. The articles for the first time came under Price Tribunal orders on August 1.

‘ ‘ Although there is no suggestion of profiteering or endeavouring to flout the regulations, the position in this case is somewhat different,” said the Magistrate. ‘‘There are two items not previously covered by the Price Tribunal Orders. An order is issued to come into effect with effect from August 1. The firm must have known of the-need to

change the price markings. The firm was fined £2O, costs 10s, solicitor’s fees £3 3s on the first charge, and £lO, costs 10s, solicitor’s fees £2 2s on the second. Women’s Clothing. Esther Cowan was charged with offering to sell (a) a blue woollen overcoat at £7 19s 3d, and (b) a green striped tweed coat at £9 19s 6d. Mr. Cooper said that the approved price for the first was £7 9s 7d and £7 16s 9d for the second. For defendant, who pleaded guilty, Mr. Laurenson said that the articles were not on open display. Defendant was a shopkeeper in a small way, and had had staff difficulties. “This offence looks a little more deliberate than the others,” commented the Magistrate in inflicting a fine of £2O, costs 10s, solicitot’s fees £3 3s on the first count, and £3, costs 10s, solicitor’ fees £2 2s on the second. Rimu Dining Suite. The Art Cabinet Coy. Ltd. was charged with offering to sell a rimu dining-suite at £37 10s and pleaded guilty. Mr. Cooper mentioned that the approved price w as £35 2s 2d. Mr. Laurenson, for defendant company, submitted that the error was caused through a misunderstanding between the head office in Wellington and the branch in Palmerston North. Evidence was given by Isaac Gotlieb, furniture dealer, with headquarters in Wellington, and a branch in Palmerston North, that a mistake was made by his branch manager in this city. •‘This case conies into a different category again,” remarked the Magistrate. ‘‘ln the other cases, the articles had been previously marked in accordance with orders and had not been altered. Here, however, the price was changed to an amount never, at any stage, in the range allowed by the Price Tribunal. The excuse is offered that it was the fault of the branch manager, but that is not acceptable, because the manager should not make mistakes of that nature. This is one of those cases for which the tribunal was set up. However, it is an iolated

The Magistrate imposed a fine of £3O, costs 10s, solicitor’s fees £3 3s.