Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PRICE FOR BUTTER-FAT

DISSATISFIED SUPPLIER / CLAIM AGAINST COMPANY DEFENCE DENIES AGREEMENT [from ouu own correspondent] " HAMILTON. Tuesday Contending that a proprietary dairy company had contracted to pay to its suppliers a price for butter-fat equally as good as that paid by its competitors. Frank Robinson Gibson, farmer, Matamata, sued the Te Aroha Dairy Company, Limited, before Mr. Justice Herd man in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day for the recovery of .£123 7s id, the difference between what plaintiff received and what lie considered was a reasonable price. Mr. E. H. Northcioft appeared for /plaintiff, and Messrs. A. H. Johnstone /'and G. P. Finlay for the defendant company. < Plaintiff set out in his statement of claim that during the period from June 3, 3929, to May 31, 1930, he delivered 30,0151b. of butter-fat to the defendant company. He claimed that a reasonable price to be paid for the butter-fat was C 2642 13s 2d, on the basis of Is 3.85 d per lb. The company paid him £2519 7d on the basis of Is 3.11 d per lb. Plaintiff claimed that ho had suffered a loss of £123 7s 7d. The defence was a denial that any agreement was made with plaintiff respecting the prjee. Nature o! Test Case Mr. Northcroft said although the claim was for a comparatively small amount, many other suppliers had the same claim js plaintiff, and the total amount likely to be in vol veil was a large one. The case could be regarded as a test. The Te Aroha Dairy^Company, Limited, was a proprietary concern.

Counsel submitted that the transaction between Gibson and the company was a contract of sale and purchase, and was not an agency/' The company received a supply of buttcr-fat from the dairy i'ar- ' mcrs, made it into butter, and sold it either in England or New Zealand. The suppliers were'"not consulted as to the method of sale, whether the butter was consigned or sold free on board. The company made progress payments, and then, said counsel, with a shrewd eye on the 'action of its competitors, it paid such a final bonus as would ensure the retention of the loyalty of its suppliers. This was done every season until 1930, when the company negotiated for the sale of its business. Plaintiff received £123 less that he would have received had the company paid out as it had done in previous years. Company Ceases Business When plaintiff was first canvassed for his supply be was definitely promised that the. price that would be paid would be as good as if. not better than that of other companies in the district, continued counsel. It was contended that the company was bound ; to continue its policy of paying out on a competitive basis in 1930, when the company ceased business, arid its successor, the Te Aroha-Thames Valley Co-operative Dairy Company, Limited, was formed.

Richard English, public accountant, / Hamilton, gave evidence that except in 2950 the pay-Guts of the Te Aroha company compared favourably with those of the four other companies operating in the district.

Plaintiff said that in 1924 a representative'of the defendant company' called on him and asked him to supply his company. He sa id the company would pay as much as or more than any other company, and would provide a direct transport service. The company gave plaintiff no information of how the butter had been sold, or how much its butter realised. Plaintiff said he compared the prices with those' of other companies and the comparisons were always favourable e/xcept in 1930.

Cross-examined, plaintiff said he could not recall that statements were made by a representative of the company in May, 1929, that the company had always followed a consignment policy and would do so for the next, season. He did not know what method of sale the Te Aroha y company adopted. If the company had continued as a. . proprietary concern, he would have supplied it for the next season. He was not aware that in the 1928-29 season the company paid less than one other factory in the district. The case was adjourned until to- . morrow. : /

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19321207.2.174

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21359, 7 December 1932, Page 16

Word Count
689

PRICE FOR BUTTER-FAT New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21359, 7 December 1932, Page 16

PRICE FOR BUTTER-FAT New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21359, 7 December 1932, Page 16