PRODUCE FIRMS’ DISPUTE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1010, 28 June 1930, Page 10

PRODUCE FIRMS’ DISPUTE

LEGAL ARGUMENT CONTINUED Press Association ELLINGTON, Friday. The hearing of the appeal of W right, Stephenson and Company. Ltd., from the judgment of Sir Michael Myers, the Chief Justice, delivered in December last, in the case of Wright, Stephenson and Companv, Ltd., v. the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company, Ltd., was continued in the Appeal Court today. On the Bench were Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Ostler. Mr. H. F. O’Leary, for the appellant company, enlarged on his second and third submissions made yesterday, and argued that by virtue of the ' store warrant, the appellant companv made the delivery of the oats a “constructive” delivery, and consequently in February it was too late for the rejection of the goods. With reference to the oats purchased by respondents from intermediate purchasers from the appellant company. Mr. O'Leary said that appellants were warehousers only, and were not stopped from going behind the store warrants to prove they had the goods and could idertifv them.

Mr. Evans, in support, submitted that there was no obligation under the contract for appellants to furnish a grader's warrant, and such an obligation had not subsequently been undertaken by them. Even if there were such an obligation, the grading and sampling system \\<ls not part of the terms of the contract. In turn, even if the grading and sampling system were a part of the contract, then the grader’s certificate was final, subject only to appeal, and appeal had not been brought. Under the contract, all the appellants had to do was to supply A grade Garton oats, and this obligation had been fulfilled. The certificate of the grader itself was not untrue, as it stood for the language of the certificate and did not compel the construction that every bag was sampled. The grader had adopted the method of sampling among merchants. If grading was compulsory under contract, it was open to appellants to contend that it was required in case of shipment only.

The case for the appellant companv then closed.

M r - A. Gray, K.C., commenced his opening for the respondent companv when the court adjourned until Tuesday.