A POTATO DEAL,

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12284, 5 April 1918, Page 5

A POTATO DEAL,

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. Judgment was given by his Honor Mr Justice Herdman to-day in the case between the Canterbury Farmers’ Cooperative Association, Timaru, and Robertson Brothers, grain and produce merchants, Auckland. Plaintiff contracted to sell the defendant three separate lines of potatoes. In terms of the contract, the potatoes were placed f.o.b. on the Ivurow, at Timaru, on May ]2, 1817, and arrived at Auckland oiT.May 18, 11)17, After inspecting the potatoes at the port of arrival the defendant rejected the whole of the shipment, 100 tons, valued at £227 3s Id. His Honor said that the sale was a sale of goods by description, and there was therefore implied a condition that the goods should correspond with the description. Further, the case was one in which the goods wore delivered to a buyer who had not previously examined them. The buyer in such ii case was not deemed to have accepted the goods unless, and until, he had a reasonable opportunity for examining them for the purpose of ascertaining whether tlie _ goods delivered were in conformity with the contract. Plaintiff knew that the goods were destined for Auckland. At no time did plaintiff intimate to defendant that the goods sold could be inspected. Mr Shirtcliffe, manager for plaintiff at Timaru, stated that not until tho goods were placed upon the ship did defendant know what goods were assigned to him. 'J he boat note, he said, would inform defendant of the quality of tho potatoes shipped. He. then proceeded to say that the plaintiff made all arrangements about the shipment of the goods and arranged for the customary bill of lading. The buyer would first know of the steamer by which the potatoes were shipped on receipt of the boat notes, and finally ho stated that his company was not bound to allocate potatoes until the day of shipment. It had been decided that the place at which a purchaser of goods was bound to inspect need not bo the place fixed for delivery by the contract, but might be the ultimate destination of the goods. The real question was: Did the plaintiff supply goods of the kind, condition and quality which- defendant agreed to buy? Widely divergent views had been expressed as to the quality and condition of the potatoes. The.' onus of proving that the goods shipped were of tlie quality and description bargained for lay on the plaintiff. There was no definite evidence of any value tending to show that tho potatoes would deteriorate to any serious extent during the voyage from Timaru to Auckland. In the face of the facts it was impossible for him to hold that the plaintiff had discharged tho onus of proving that t-lie potatoes delivered were of the quality and description which he agreed to supply to the defendant. He therefore gave judgment for defendant. As the sum in dispute at the time of the trial was £227 3s Id, together with £SO for genera! damages and interest amounting approximately to £l2. he allowed costs ns per scale on the sum of those three amounts, namely. £281) 3s Id, with witnesses’ expenses and .disbursements to be settled by the Registrar. He also certified for extra counsel for each day of tbc trial at £5 5s a day, and £ls 15s for the second dav of trial.

Alessrs Kinnerney and Hunter nppenrod for plaintiff and Messrs Skerrett and J. IT. *V\ illmnis for the defendant.