GLASS COMPANY'S CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21520, 17 June 1933, Page 14

GLASS COMPANY'S CLAIM

JUDGMENT BY CONSENT KINDRED ACTION FAILS "ON LEGAL MERITS ONLY" Judgment was issued by Mr. Justice Smith in the Supreme Court yesterday in a dual action over a contract for the purchase of bottles, which was heard by him last November. In the first action, Australian Glass Manufacturers Company, Limited (Mr. Barrow-' clough), sued Auckland Products, Limited (Mr. Leary), and Vacuum Products (N.Z.), Limited (Mr. McCormick), for damages for an alleged breach of contract for the salo and purchase of 2000 gross of bottles of various sizes. In the second action, Auckland Products, Limited, sued Vacuum Products (N.Z.), Limited, for an indemnity in respect of this contract. The Glass Company asked that damages for alleged breach of contract, amounting to £2OS3, should be awarded against both the other companies. Mr. Leary, for Auckland Products, admitted that the Glass Company was entitled to judgment on tho contract' against Auckland Products, with tho result that the sole question left for determination was whether the Glass Company was also entitled to judgment against Vacuum Products. With reference to two letters written in December, 1931, by Thomas Reynolds on behalf of Vacuum Products, His Honor said it was no exaggeration to say that although they did not actually acknowledge tho contract, they were mere shuffles, in the light of the facts, on the question of the promised responsibility under the contract. " Vacuum Products ought to be bound by the contract," he said, " but I have been forced to the conclusion that they are not bound in law. In the result, tho Glass Company is entitled to judgment against Auckland Products by consent, but it is not entitled to judgment against Vacuum Products. " The action by Auckland Products against Vacuum Products must fail. With regard to s,' both actions have been tried toget} and the costs may require adjustment. If they are not settled by the parties, counsel should submit a memorandum in writing as to.the way in which they should be dealt with. Vacuum Products is escaping from liability under this judgment because of my view of the legal merits of the case, but I am satisfied that it has no other merits."