IMPORTANT STOCK CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11223, 31 May 1922, Page 2

IMPORTANT STOCK CASE

BREACH OF DUTY ALLEGED A PURCHASER’S “FINANCIAL ABILITY." SUPREME COURT CASE. Points of very considerable interest to stock-breeders and vendors, in their relation to stock-agents and to customers introduced by such agents, were ventilated yesterday in the Supreme Court before Hie Honour, Mr Justice Chapman.

The plaintiff, William Alexander D’Arcy, a farmer, of Wanganui, was represented by Mr E. T. llurnard (of Gisborne), instructed by Marshall, Hutton and Izard. The defendants were Dalgety and Co., Ltd., of Wellington, stock agents, and John Henry Powell, of Charleston, a butcher, the defendant company being represented by Mr C. P. Skerrett, K.C.

THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS. Carried to the Supreme Court, from the original hearing at Wanganui on February 11th last, the present case was based upon three motions; by the defendants for (1) nonsuit, and (2) for a new trial, by the plaintiff (3) a formal motion for judgment on the finding by the jury in the lower oourt, and on the facts there disclosed. In the amended statement of claim it was alleged chiefly that the defendant, Powell, introduced by Dnlgety’s as a customer for the purchase of certain bullocks from the plaintiff, had failed to complete his contract of purchase because of his inability to pay for the stock; / and that Dalgety and 00. had failed to exercise due care and diligence in the investigation of Powell’s financial ability.

"BREACH OF DUTY” ALLEGED. Plaintiff claimed that, as a oonsequenco of Dalgety’s “breach of duty,” he had suffered loss from Powell’s failure to complete the purchase; and, as having introduced Powell, plaintiff held Dalgety and Co. responsible for such loss, damages for "breach of duty/’ amounting to ,£BOO. being asked for. The findings of the court at Wanganui, as expressed by the jury, were given in favour of the plaintiff on the following three issues:—(l) That there existed a general custom, under whioh a stock agent was liable for completion of the contract between the vendor and the customer found by the agent company; (2) that delivery of the stock had been made to the purchaser with Dalgety and Co/s approval; and (3) that the .stock agent was under an obligation to introduce only a purchaser of approved financial ability. !

“NO I SPECIFIC LaSS.’’ Most of Monday was token up by the defendant company's counsel in stating his case, based upon a mass of legal and technical authorities.. Apparently, said Mr Skerrett, K.C., the plaintiff suggested that, had Dalgety’s done their assumed “duty” in ascertaining the financial ability of Powell, then plaintiff would not have made any contract with Powell. But the plaintiff, contended counsel, ; had certainly not proved that he had sustained; any specific loss by entering into that contract with Powell. Plaintiff, continued counsel, still had his bullocks, had, in fact, never parted with them; and there had been no guarantees given that the sale would go through. In any case, suggested Mr Skerrett, K.C., the real measure of the damages sustained was the difference between the original contract price and the market value of the cattle on the date of the contract,. . The , cattle had not been, sold until October, and .there was not a shred of evidence to show what was the market price of the cattle in July. As the cattle had been mistakenly taken for Dalgety’s, they had not been sold; but no charge for grazing was for that reason permissible.

OBLIGATIONS TO VENDOR. In his address to t*lie court on Monday, Mr Buraard, for the plaintiff, cited a number of cases bearing on the point that the defendant company, as vendors’ agent, ,was under the obligation to introduce only-a solvent purchaser. In depending upon the safety of that introduction by Dalgety’s, for making the contract with Ptowell, plaintiff, said said oounsel, had lost the opportunity to make another sale to advantage. MARKET DROPPED. In this particular case, contended 1 Mr Barnard, the contract had' been made on. July 27th or 28th, Dalgety’s were proved to have known the position on July 30th; and the market started to drop shortly after August Ist. The loss incurred by plaintiff, said counsel, was dependent upon two issues: the difference in value and the item of grazing. In regard to the statement made in thd Wanganui trial'by Mr Oresswell, that prices almost invariably rose (from Auguse to November, continued Mr Burnard, that was clearly a misstatement in regard to the actual conditions ruling in 1921. On July 28th the cattle were sold to Powell for £2B 10s, on October 17th they sold for £ll and £ll 10s; a difference which, sail counsel, clearly supported the evidence of the D’Areys. EEQUOTED AT £ls. Dalgety’s, argued oounsel, somewhere about August 24th had quoted the cattle to Miller at £ls, and Dalgety’s were at that time trying to get out of a hole and certainly would not have quoted the cattle for less than they were