SALE OF GOODS.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 July 1925, Page 8

SALE OF GOODS.

THE LAW EXPLAINED. The manner in which the law safeguards the rights of buyers ami sellers of even such small things as a packet of plus or a ease of fruit at an auction sale, in addition to more weighty contracts involving thousands of pounds, was explained by Mr. L. M. Moss, L.L.M., in the course of an address on the Sale of Goods Act delivered to the New Plymouth Commerce Students’ Society last night. Mr. Hugh Baily presided.

After explaining how the general statement in the Act regarding contracts for tho sale of goods was qualified by the Statute of Frauds, Mr. Moss pointed out that parties must make their own contracts. The courts would not make a man’s contract for him, Care in ordering was essential. If a cable Was sent, “’Forward my account 3,000 dozen pairs of boots,” -and they were sent, the ordering firm must pay, although it intended ordering 300 dozen only. Sometimes the court allowed outside evidence to explain ambiguous words, but it was unsafe to rely on this. There were a number of abbreviated expressions, commonly used, to which custom had given a definite meaning. For instance, a buyer ordering 1000 tons of flour, New Plymouth, c.i.f., the buyer must take up and pay shipping documents at any time, and could not say that he intended to have the right of Inspection before he paid his money. Under a c.i.f. contract, which meant cost, insurance and. freight, the seller must ship the goods, procure freight and obtain insurance and present the documents to the buyer without unreasonable delay. A breach of any of these terms by the seller might release the buyer. The seller’s duty ended when the documents were presented. If the documents were in order, the seller was entitled to his cash or acceptance of his draft. He sold goods, but delivery was effected by handing over the shipping documents, although the goods themselves might have been destroyed by fire or lost at sea. Clearly the buyer could not avoid payment or postpone It in order that he might inspect goods on arrival unless he had expressly stipulated in the contract to the contrary. He probably paid long before delivery of the goods when his only right if the goods were deficient in number or quality Was to claim damages. Goods sold f.o.b. were at the purchaser’s risk after delivery to the ship, and insurance must be arranged for by tho buyer unless the contract provided otherwise. The various clauses of Che New Zealand Sale of Goods Act were explained, especially the provisions showing when the goods ceased to be the property of the seller. Onoe the goods became the property of the purchaser, third parties bona fide acquiring from the purchaser got a good title, even although the seller had not paid. The operation of the law giving the seller the right to a lien, or where the buyer became insolvent, to a right of stoppage In transit, -were explained. The position of sale of goods auction sales was referred to, it being explained that the seller could only bid If the right to bid was reserved. Even this provision did not apply at auction sales ol fruit, fish or vegetables, because our New Zealand law provided that where these were sold by auction every lot should go to the highest bidder willing to pay cash, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, Unless there was any agreement to the contrary, if goods -were delivered to a buyer, and for a good reason he refused to accept them, he need not re•turn them to the seller, It would be sufficient in such a case if he intimated to the seller his refusal to accept and his reason for so acting. With regard to prices, unless the parties had other-

wise agreed, fluctuations In market prices would usually not excuse delivery, and the loss fell on the seller. The late Sir John Salmond had left behind him, amongst his many contributions to the law, a singular and exhaustive exposition of the principles underlying the Sale of Goods Act in the case T-aylor v. Combined Buyers, Ltd., heard in 1923. The case was especially interesting as it dealt with the subject of motor-cars, which were comparatively new subjects for legal consideration. The plaintiff had purchased from the defendant company a now motor-car, and, after driving it hundreds of miles, found that the car was defective when sold, and claimed to rescind the contract. Alternatively he claimed darna<res alleging an implied condition of fitness and merchantable quality. After reviewing the authorities at length, His Honour held that the car, although a new car when sold, was notup to its trade name, but the plaintiff having used it for three months could not return the car, but was given the right to claim damages. Tho various other decisions, which were explained In His Honour’s ludgment, were referred to by Mr. Mom as illustrating the points which commonly arose in modern commercial Pr Vote»‘of thanks were accorded the lecturer and the chairman.