AN ONION CROP.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19814, 4 December 1919, Page 8

AN ONION CROP.

SEEDS FAIL TO GERMINATE JUDGMENT AGAINST SEEDSMAN. Reserved judgment was delivered at (ho Magistrate's Court this morning by Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., in the case between Michael Cook, plaintiff, and R. S. Shillito, defendant, a claim for £(JO los in respect of an alleged breach of contract by the defendant, whereby, by two separate contracts of sale, ho agreed to sell to the. plaintiff certain colonial grown Drown Spanish onion seed which was not according to description in that it had become devitalised 1 , or in the alternative, was not according to warranty. Tho case _ was hoard on November 20. Mr W. J. Hunter appearing for the plaintiff and Mr George Harper for the defendant. Tho plaintiff is a market gardener at Marshland, and the defendant is a seedsman carrying on business in Colombo Street, Christchurch. During tho month of August, 1918, plaintiff saw defendant and asked him if ho had any good colonial-grown Brown Spanish onion seed. Defendant replied that ho had. and plaintiff then purchased 2lb of that class of seed. About a fortnight later a similar, contract. was made between the parties. Good sowl of any description meant seed capable of germination within the usual period, ami tho defendant did

not protect himself from any possible claims by plaintiff consequent upon lack of germination. It was impossible for the. plaintiff from mere inspection to ascertain whether the seed bought was capable of germination, al-

though ho could have tested it before it was sown. This ho failed to do. Ho relied upon reoeivina good seed from defendant. Plaintiff sowed the seed with the skill usual with the market gardener, but with the. exception of a few isolated plants there was no germination. The sale was one by description. It was not a case of plaintiff buying seed and of defendant warranting it to be, good. It was a case where tho vendor agreed to sell and the, purchaser to buy good seed. There was an implied condition in a sale by description that , the goods should 1)0 of merchantable quality, unless the bgyer had examined

the goods, in which case there was no implied condition as regards defects the examination ought to have revealed. Tho plaintiff having accepted and sown the seeds could not now reject them : as not being according to description. His solo remedy was for damages as on a bleach of warranty. As soon as plaintiff discovered the lack of germination ho informed defendant, who visited plaintiff’s farm, inspected his onion bed, noted the lack of germination of the seeds, and promisee! to test tho seeds and let plaintiff know the result.. r pii e defendant never again communicated with plaintiff. There had been no satisfactory evidence as. to the precise profit plaintiff would have made had the seed been good. The Magistrate fixed plaintiff’s loss at too, and gave judgment for that amount, fog'll;.: emm.