BREACH OF WARRANTY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16211, 23 August 1923, Page 3

BREACH OF WARRANTY.

ALLEGED BY PURCHASE OF COW

A case involving an alleged breach of warranty in respect: of a. cow was ■heard in the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. E. C. Levvey, S.M. Common, Shelton and Co, (Mr. J. Blair) proceeded against Henry E. Wilson (Mr. J. S. Wauehop) for the sum of £l6 ss, the prices of a cow bouglit by Sanction by the. defendant from tin- plaintiff .company. George Walker, the owner of the cow, was also joined as a defendant, Wilson j counter-claiming idteraately against him and Common, Shelton and Co., for £2O damages in respect, of the cow, contending that, .a warranty was given that the cow was in calf, but that it proved to be not in calf, '.• -. :-\

For the plaintiff firm, Mr,. Blair explained that the company had paid tJie purchase money to Walker, by. the authority provided under the conditions of sale. Wilson had refused to pay, and it was to him, not Walker, that the company looked for payment. Thomas McGeehan, auctioneer for Common, Shelton and Co., stated that Wilson was a client of the firm. tin January 18 witness sold some cows belonging to Walker, Wilson purchasing a Jersey cow at ±fl6 ss. Wilson took the cow away With some, other purchases. The description! of the* cow was given by Waiker. About, a fortnight later Wilson complained that the cow was not in calf, and the firm wroio to Walker, who said that he could not do anything about it. To Mr. Wauchdp witness t~aid that he had endeavored to arrange a Ecttlemenfj by arbitration! as provided by the conditions of sole, bnt lie. failed. At the sale Walker stood alongside him and gave the description, which witness repeated, that the cow was due to calve in July. That proved to ho an error. This was- the highest priced cow sold that day, but as an ordinary prime fat, cow she would haves brought about £4 lCs. Wilson had paid fur all the stock except the one in dispute. In 99 eases out of ICQ. of such disputes, a settlement was reached iby the arbitration! of the auctioneer.

To Mr. Hill witness explained that all Poverty Bay sales were conducted under the conditions of sale referred to. Under the conditions a warranty or guarantee could only be enforceable if reduced to writing. That meant (bat without such writing they eould not force the vendor to take the animal back, but they could enforce an allowance where a eow did wot prove to be up,to its description. 1 This concluded the case for the plaintiff firm.

Mr. Wauehop submitted that if it. rould be shown that .the cow was sold to Wilson as a cow in calf, that it proved to lie not in calf, then Wilson had bought something which he did not intend to buy. The practice, notwithstanding -the conditions of yak', was not to .give written guarantees. That Mas (sufficient to estop the setting up of that condition. If that could not be held, then he submitted that Wilson was entitled to some rebate on the price; of the cow.

Evidence was given by the defendant, Henry E. Wilson, farmer, of Waikohu. At the time of tho sale. Walker was standing alongside the auctioneer, who gave tho guarantee! that the eow was duo to ralvo in .July. The cow went to £6 before the guarantee was given. When he found that the cow was not in call he wrote to the) firm asking that Walker should be wiTtten to and asked to make an allowance. The cow could not be brought into calf.

At'' this stage tho Court adjourned until this afternoon.