BREACH OF A CONTRACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LV, Issue 16892, 3 July 1918, Page 8

BREACH OF A CONTRACT.

PLAINTIFF AWARDED £150. Damages totalling £350 for alleged breach of contract wero claimed by tho Dominion Porcelain and Tilo Industries, Ltd., Christchurch (Mr. Richmond),- from the Kamo Brick, Tile and Potiory Company, Ltd., in liquidation (Mr. Carruth), at the' Supremo Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Cooper. » ' In tho statement of claim plaintiff declared that a contract was entered into with the defendant by letters dated March 6 -and 13, 1917, and by letters and telegrams to W. A. Parkor, Whangaroi, liquidator of the defendant company, dated March 9 and 10, 1917, whereby defendant agreed to sell and deliver to plaintiff a dry pan for tho price of £90, f.o.b, at Auckland. On Juno 19, 1917, however, the defendant company, by telegram from the liquidator, declared the deal off, and refused to perform the contract, Tho plaintiff stated that the dry pan was, at tho time the contract was made, the only one available in the Dominion. Owing to the war conditions and shipping difficulties it had beon impossible to procure another dry pan in the Dominion or to import one, and it was impossible to say when a dry pan would be available, and at what price, fho delay and ultimate refusal of (he dofondant to perform tho contract had caused plaintiff great loss. The defence was that it was a condition of tho contract, mado verbally, that the price should bo paid in cash at Whangarci before tho dry pan was shipped. Evidence given for the defence to this effect by W. A. Parker, liquidator of the defendant company, wai objected to by Mr. Richmond, on "tho ground that no evidence could be given of a verbal arrangement to alter the effect of a contract in writing. The evidence was admitted by the Court, subject to the objection. "

His Honor said the defendant had failed entirely to establish that there was any condition precedent to tho contract, which had not beun reduced to writing. He held that the correspondence between tho parties formed a contract which the defendant had not carried out. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for £150, with costs according to scale.