WIRES IN CODE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10578, 6 October 1910, Page 6

WIRES IN CODE.

A ' Press Association , message from Christchurch gives fuller particulais.ren garding an. imiiortant case, winch was briefly referred to .yesterday '.The •judgment,; of Justice Sim in the ■case Colebrook and Knight j(Ltd.V v.. ' Skcltou ' F-rostick, and Go. i was filed in .the.:' Supreme Court to-day. ' The judgment states that the case illustrated - 'how -necessary • it' was to bo careful in the use-of telegraphic codes. Owing'to a mistake made, by the defendants in decoding a message sent to. them by plaintiffs, (who were„their buying agents in London), and: to another mistake made by the defendants in. coding a message sent bv them to plaintiffs, plaintiffs" entered into a contract foi the purchase for £4OO of certain parts of an organ, when defendants intended ■ to instruct them to purchase 400 electrical magnets for £lO eliurch City organ. The parts of the organ were duly shipped to the order of plaintiffs, audi.paid for bv tliein. The question to-be determined was whether* the' loss.'-resulting' from the misunderstanding between the parties was to be borne bv plamtifts or defendants. The principal ought to -use clear and definite, language when -giving instructions to his agent. -If he used ambiguous lan- , guage, and a mistake was made thereby, he himself ought to suffer the consequences. i.iThe agent on his part ought: to use reasonable intelligence and care •in • interpreting and . executing his .instructions: If he did that lie was entitled to lie nnduintiihed.< Although he might'have;made, a mistake. 111 the present case the; plamtifts entered into the contractr-an-question in the bona- fide execution of what' thev believed -to be • the/ instructions of the defendants, and they were, entitled: to. be indemnified,: unless 11 was clear that they ;did not;: use reasonable intelligence and, ■ care-, ininterpreting , the defendants' cable-, grams.- In'hiS: Honor's opinion they were -pistified 111;: construing, the cablegrams as they did. The ludgment referred at length to the cablegrams pass-: mg between the (parties, and Ins Honor , • came' to - the conclusion -that- the whole trouble was >caused directly by lessness of defendants m the use of the-, code,; and - that thev- ought to -bear the - loss that was caused by their own-care-; lessness:; "It'wasicontendediTij' sell that the plaintiffs before paying Mr Ingram ought to have 'ascertained • .whether.i the.- mohey-.-was■ spayable. .'.-'-in* terms of the contract. His Honor could; ■ not 1 see that there was any-:snch duty icast cn the ■ plaintiffsm'-.the .;crrcumstances. The offer contained lii.-Mr--Insrrain's letter of the 22nd of August, 19C7, Ho the Town Clerk was to certain parts and do certain work &utf .plaintiffs did-not; know the terms-of ."theoffer,: nor ; was • ltj necessarv .for them ..to. know. All that thev did was to convey to v.<)ffer - majle- iby Ingram, . which'"was to supply the .parts , ni entioned. :i n-th at. .letter .and. to furnish.; instructions with regard to the work It tfas simply an offer to supply dGrtam >goods. with plans, instructions, .v - l).ef endants''Sj cablegramaj p-iumth Ruthinised 'plaintiffs to accept • the offer,, and they - were, justified in payingifor the! .goods-wlieii they were • .shipped to N tliejr order. It was not suggested" did'not' deliver the ■parts; he undertook to supply, and,"it would not have made ajiy difference in the -result if the plaiutifls- had ascertained the termskof the" offer contained in, 'the*.letter toj the -Town ■; Clerk, and ? had*_inspected tlie.,parts to sec whether 'they corresponded with the list in the letter: r-He', thought therefore that the Question .submitted for the opinion of the. Court must he answered m favor of plaintiffs: vTf' theiparties could not agree as" to jthe amount for which judgment was to be given;! that could be settled itv Chambers,vartd-the question of costs could be-settled nat the samt? time.