ALLEGED PROFITEERING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18053, 29 September 1920, Page 6

ALLEGED PROFITEERING

BIG BEN APPEAL CASES,

(Pee United Press Association) Tn «, WELLINGTON, September 2a ■ In the Appeal Court in thnX -n oases Sir John Findlay £y *&?*£? enee had shown traders what orices th£ must charge, so. that in a series of ytrs their business might show a profit on what s the market, or replacement price The Crown's case ignored (1) llny reference to the market .price, (2) any refcrenco "to%u° true value in exchange of the u and (3, the difference between ability of different and arranging their business. The CrownH a^! men t would cle P rive an able rnamTer of the extra profit he could make o"r wh*t a poor manager could maker. Fre e com bo3t Md °* - attack the scheme of fixating the pices No attack was made on the reasonablone's of the profits made by manufacturers nor on the rate of profit of the wholesalers and retailers where goods are bought andsdd on the basis of ono price schedule N 0 attack was made on the ground th-.* tit %r*° th ° pUblic in AprfL°l9VSn^ 0 255-was an unreasonably high pricT on tho basis of the March lWi ~ • SCh i Ul l ,P? -'bject of merely the 40 clocks which were purchased fel^T^ec^^^igS of the Board of Trade Act -Q) only to goods sold in the cowse of P ffi or business. (2) There was nothing in tfw section which permitted all the circum stances o tho case being considered ffl Talcing all the .circumstances into consideia tion it was reasonable to sell ffi under the new and higher schedule price A reasonable course of business reqS a higher rate of profit on a few aSs when the pnee is being raised owf"' to increased cost o production. As to cost of replacement the theory is submittedMn three propositions :-(l) That the maektraie was entvtled to hold that it wa, business pract.cc. (2) That capital is lost if goods that have gone up in price are sold nt the usual margin of profit on 'tho cost pnee. 3) Conversely i BtocW have fallen in p ,ice thoy ?nuS be "'ft.-VrT ° r a rC f lu ? od Mte <>{orofit llie bohcitor-general, in reply, submitted that the statute was passed for th o Wfifc of the consumer and not of tho seller The arguments of tho other side with rgard to replacement theory were fiL lac.ous. Pho only way to estimate profit was to compare buying and selling orices and the sa .l o at 25s of at. article vtUTZSj cost 12s was clearly an unreasonable sale profit. Tho case is still unfinished.