UNDELIVERED GOODS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 882, 7 December 1916, Page 10

UNDELIVERED GOODS.

A CHINA TRANSACTION. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. At the Magistrate's Court to-day, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., Arthur Charles Nottingham and William ' Bryce Wilkin, trustees of the estate of John F. Duff, an Eastern merchant, claimed from John Bates and Co., Ltd., the sum of t'7B 5 7 for goods supplied. The defendant admitted the claim, but countcrclaimcd for £57 15/-. The counterclaim stated that china had been indented through the plaintiffs but had been supplied to another firm. It therefore claimed t'O 11/8 as 33' per cent., (he increased market value of goods since the indent was accepted, .€lO 3/4 for 50 per cent, loss of profit, and £2O as special damages. It further claimed £9 owing to the non-delivery of goods indented on June 10, 1915. Mr Alpers, with him Mr Ward, represented the plaintiffs, and Mr Hunter the defendant. ter the defendant. John Edward Bates, a director of Bates and Co., Ltd., said that on April 13, 1015, he contracted with J. F. Duff for a supply of china vases. The indent was marked "'arrive in August, urgent delivery." The arrangements were made with a Mr Greig, a salesman employed at Duff's. Bepeated inquiries were made about the goods, but he was told on each occasion they had not arrived. In January, 1016, it came to his knowledge that similar goods to those ordered were on view in the D.I.C. window. Greig subsequently admitted that the goods in the D.I.C. were those ordered by witness's firm, and that a mistake had been made. Greig said that only a portion of the goods had been sent to the D.I.C. Witness detailed subsequent negotiations with Mr Millar, Duff's accountant, to effect a settlement. Millar made a proposition that Bates and Co., Ltd., should take other goods to settle the matter. This offer was refused. By checking the goods shown in the D.I.C. with those ordered through Mr Duff, 13 pieces were identified. The goods were Japanese. The counterclaim was based on a 50 per cent, loss of profit, which was a reasonable trade profit. On June 16, 1016. 36 dozen cups and saucers were ordered on indent through Duffs at 4/- a dozen. These were not delivered. Since the filing of the counterclaim. Bales and Co. had been advised - that the goods had come to hand. Others had been ordered at 6/0 a dozen. To Mr Alpers: Since the time of the original sale £403 worth of goods po-n been su PP ,ie d by l>ufTs and U/0 worth returned. Goods were received on "appro." The indent tor the vases was subject to this only as regards a certain line, and also that the vases were not porous, it the goods were porous, the defendant might have rejected them. Re-examined bv Mr Hunter: He had never been advised bv Duff and Co. that the goods on arrival were lound to be porous. John Win. Bates, senr., another director of Bates and Co., Ltd., said that his son (the previous witness) arranged all indents. After the goods had been identified in the D.I.C. window, Greig had an interview with witness. Greig admitted that the goods in question, were part of Bates and Co.'s indent. Greig later told him he was unable to get the goods back from the D.I.C, but never

mentioned that the goods were porous. witness handed a statement to the Magistrate showing purchases made through customers being attracted by the window display. George W. Bennett, an indent agent, said that since April 1 the li ade advance in earthenware goods was 10 per cent., and the increase in freight 22 to 2a per cent. Fifty per cent, was a fair trade profit. 1 homasina Rogers, head saleswoman to Bates and Co., said that Mr Greig admitted to her that the goods shown in the D.I.C. window had been indented by Bates and Co. Walter Tinker, a storeman employed by Bates and Co., gave evidence regarding purchases made of goods displayed in the D.I.C. window. Amy Cutler, a saleswoman, also gave evidence. (Proceeding).