EXPENSIVE MISTAKE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22099, 3 May 1935, Page 14

EXPENSIVE MISTAKE

MUTILATED MESSAGE

FIRM SEEKS COMPENSATION

A decision to seek nn undertaking from the Minister of Post and Telegraphs to compensate any individuals or firms suffering financial loss through errors in the transmission of telegrams or cablegrams was reached nt a meeting of the executive of tlie Auckland Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

The matter arose through the receipt of a complaint from an Auckland fruit importing firm stating that on February 15 it forwarded a code cablegram to its agents in Rarotonga as follows: —"Bananas what quantity do you anticipate by Maunganui? What quantity can you supply? Will pay market rate Telegraph best price. Please treat this matter as urgent." The message was mutilated in transmission to read as iollows: "Bananas advance Maunganui 2d. Will pay market rate 7s Sd. Please treat this matter as urgent.'' lhe market value in Rarotongn for this particular shipment was 5s 6il a case f.0.b., at which price fruit bad already been purchased by opposition merchants, and the receipt in Rarotonga of the mutilated cable had the effect of forcing prices up to the extent of 2s a case on all fruit shipped. The Post Office had agreed to refund the cablegram charges, i but refused to consider making any i compensation in regard to the substantial "loss experienced by the firm, 'lhe Post Office was absolved by law from any such responsibility. Other firms had suffered similar losses, and it was thought that some compensation was due. IMMUNITY FROM CLAIMS NEW ZEALAND NOT ALONE Commenting on the complaint of the Chamber of Commerce concerning the mutilated cablegram, Mr. 11. McGill, acting-chief postmaster at Auckland, said it should be understood that the message mentioned was in code. He said New Zealand was not alone in making the authorities immune from a claim for any loss which might occur through a mutilated message. There was a similar provision in the case of the British Post and Telegraph Department. In Australia, also, in accordance with the International Telegraph Convention, there was no provision permitting any claim against the authorities. Probably the immunity applied in all countries which were parties to the Inernational Telegraph Convention.