FISH SHIPMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10976, 11 August 1921, Page 4

FISH SHIPMENT

REFUSAL OF DRAFT. FREIGHT CONTRACTS AND INSURANCE POLICIES. A claim, to recover £322 2s Sd, and interest, as damages for alleged breach of contract, m regard to the supply of 75 cases of Norwegian smoked fish, was the subject of a judgment delivered by His Honour Mr Justice Sim (Acting-Chief Justice) in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were Henry Olsen and Co., Pty., Ltd., and the defendants, Thompson 8r06., Ltd. Defendants gave to the plaintiffs’ representative in Wellington orders for Norwegian smoked fish in Aygust and September, 1919. The orders were not accepted till the following January. The goods were shipped from Norway in April. Defendants refused to honour the draft, and the goods were bonded by the Bink of New Zealand, as agent for the plaintiffs. FREIGHT AND INSURANCE NOTES. His Honour, in his judgment, said that the question to be determined was whether or not the plaintiffs had proved compliance with their obligations under the contracts, as established by authorities, which he quoted. As there was only one bill of lading, it woe clear that the plaintiffs did not make.as they were bound to do, a separate contract of affreightment, in respect oi each parcel of sild agreed to be sold to the defendants; the position appeared to be the same in connection with the insurance. There should have been a separate policy in respect of the goods shipped foe the defendants, if not a separate policy for each parcel. Instead of procuring such a policy, tho plaintiffs included iu one ’policy the two lots of goods shipped for the defendants, with 400 other cases of similar goods. FAILED TO CARRY OUT CONTRACT. “It is clear, therefore,” said His Honour, “that the plaintiffs failed to carry out their obligations under the contracts in at least two matters, proper contracts c? affreightment and insurance." This failure was a complete answer to the plaintiffs’ claim to recover damages, and it was unnecessary to consider any of the other questions raised by counsel, on behalf of the defendants. Judgment was entered for the defendant. with costs. Mr Nerve appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Gray. K.C-. and Mr Kennedy for the defendants.