CASH-ORDER TRADING

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 793, 14 October 1929, Page 11

CASH-ORDER TRADING

SUGGESTED LIMITATIONS OUTCOME OF INQUIRY Limitations to toe imposed on future operations of companies conducting tlie cash order trading system were embodied in a remit from the Wellington Chamber. There were as follow: (1) That the charge to clients should not exceed 6d in the £. (2) That the trade and cash discounts allowed by retailers accepting the orders should not exceed 10 per cent. (3) That canvassing for orders should be prohibited. (4) That no mail-order propaganda be allowed. (5) That the cash orders be open to any firm willing to accept them, and not limited to one firm or individual. (6) That all orders should be issuable from a registered office only. (7) That no orders shall be issued to persons under the age of 21, or to married women without the consent, in writing! of their husbands. (S) That no order be issued to any person who has not completed payment o£ any previous order. MUCH EVIDENCE TAKEN In moving the remit, Mr. D. J. McGowan (Wellington) said that an inquiry had been conducted in March and April and that evidence had been taken in the four centres and 55 witnesses were heard. These represented trade organisations, principals of cash order trading companies, retailers and householders. It was found that while the cash order system in some form had been in operation in New Zealand for at least 33 years, only recently had it shown a marked advance. Considerable concern had ben felt by retailers at the proposals to establish companies on the lines of those operating in Australia. The inquiry suggested that the companies operating the system should he asked to submit to voluntary regulation on the lines suggested by' the limitations given above, but also recommended that if the former be ineffective recourse be had to legislation. "The system is held by retailing interests to be iniquitous once it gets beyond narrow limits,” said Mr. McGowan. "and some discipline seems necessary so that the system be put on a fair basis and to restrict it from abuses, unfavourable both to the purchaser and shopkeeper alike.” The remit was seconded by Mr. A. G. Limn (Auckland) and carried.