INTEREST ON STORE ACCOUNTS.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12844, 30 November 1905, Page 6

INTEREST ON STORE ACCOUNTS.

AN INSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION. An instructive discussion took place be-1 tween the Stipendiary Magistrate and: Mr C. T. H. Peiry, solicitor, at the Magistrate's Court, /Timaiu, yesterday,. on; the legal right of a, storekeeper to charge interest on overdue accounts. ' : ' '\ The Canterbury Farmers' Co-operative. Association sued Mr J. T. Rogers for a balance of account £7 9s, this amount in-' eluding a charge of £1 15s 2d for interest. Defendant did not appear; a*nd Mr Perry, for plaintiffs, asked for judgment.' • . b His Worship remarked that there was an item, of interest charged. Had defendant agreed to pay interest? Mr Perry:.-The account has been requently rendered with that item in "it •: defendant paid £5 on account, and 'he had a letter of December sth 1904, promising to pay the account. ' Nothing was supplied after that; .: (Letter rerad.) .-.-..''■ ' '■■ His WorshipV'-Tlie letter "does not say! .that he would pay the interest. " \ Mr Perry : He does not dispute it. \ His Worsnip: I always off \k-\ terest if there was no agreement to. pay! it. I will give : you an adjournment "to get his consent to pay,if you,like. . Mr-Perry: 'lt is ; sta£d ia tb% ,bf the bills that interest will charged- ■'■ rule it "out if there twas no agreement:.' '. Mr-Perry procieeded b" argue ilai ; the claim was .sustaibiable./. The law governing the ch'argnjg M^tefest 'was a statute of William IV,-, abd the' Statute provided'that a creditor tfould, claim interest at the current, rate -from the date of a proper, demand for payment, if payment .was made, and notice was given in writing to the debtor that interest would be claimed. In? this case notice was given in the heading of each account, for the purpose of complying with that Statute, and lie submitted very confidently that, having given notice, they were entitled to payment. Suppose they gave a man a separate notice they do no more than they "had done. It was a specific notice under..the Statute. His' Worship said it had been his practice for years to disavow interest where there was no evidence of agreement to pay it, and he had ruled over and over again "that | a notice in ; the bill-head was insufficient ' to prove such agreement.

Mr Perry read, the notice in the billhead : "Interest will be charged on all accounts not paid within one month from date of invoice." That was a notice in writing as required by the. Statute, and it could not be made-more specific. The debtor had received that notice and had not objected, and he had paid £5 on account. Mr Perry quoted " Chitty on Contracts" to show that agreement to pay interest may be inferred from the course of dealing between the parties ; as for instance, if the debtor had frequently been charged and had paid without objection interest on former similar accounts. (His AVorship : There is nothing of that here.) He could prove that interest had been frequently charged, aifd that after all the account had been- made out he paid £5 on account, with the charges for interest in. front of him. That would amount to agreement to pay interest.

R. Lowry, clerk to plaintiffs, proved that defendant had paid £5 after receiving the account with a claim for interest in it; and produced a letter of December 1904, in which defendant asked that; the account be allowed to stand a while and he would attend to it. His Worship : That is not a promise to pay interest. His Worship: There is another line in the billhead. What is the meaning of " Terms; net cash on delivery ?" That must mean that when the goods are handed, over the 1 customer must pay net cash. You prove that that is not carried out by suing now for a credit. . The heading seems to me to be meaningless; you don't carry it out in that respect. Mr Perry: That is generally understood as a notice to pay as promptly as possible. His Worship : But it shows how much such notices are worth. You say " terms net cash on delivery" and then you give credit. If they carried that out and demanded the money they might then demand interest.Mr Perry: That is our position. We demanded the money by sending in the account, and when it was not paid interest may be charged. His Worship said he would consider the matter. It had been the practice in this Court, and every other Court that he knew of, to strike out claims for interest; but there might be' something in what Mr Perry said. He Tvsuld look into it. He would adjourn the case for 14 days. Mr Perry said he would try to find an authority on the. subject and send it to his Worship, who said he would be pleased to receive it. He had always held that a- notice on a. bill-head, was insufficient to show that the "debtor was party to an agreement to pay interest; that it must be shown that he had consented to pay.