SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16506, 17 August 1921, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. The sittings of the Supreme Court wero continued before his Honor Mr J ustice Herdmau to-day. PRISONER SENTENCED. John Daniels, convicted in Westport of sending a false telegram, was brought up for sentence. * His Honor said that the case was not one for leniency. In 1919, tho prisoner was sentenced for obscene language, and on three charges of theft. In Wellington, in the same year, he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for breaking and entering. In Westport this year, ho was sentenced again to imprisonment for theft. The prisoner, it was clear, had made up his mind to live the life of a criminal, and it was better to keep him under lock and key. He would be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with hard labour. CIVIL SITTINGS. CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. Henry Povnton Bridge, of Messrs Stringer and Bridge, public accountants, Christchurch, sued W. B. Scott and Co., Christchurch, motor dealers, lor damages for alleged breach of contract. The statement of claim set out that on or about October 1-5, 1919, plaintiff signed a form ordering a model 501 F.I.A.T car. Tho price written in the form was £SOO. with the letters “ approx.” against it. The car was to be delivered at Christchurch as soon as circumstances permitted, payment to ho cash on delivery. Plaintiff paid £lO deposit, but reserved the right to repudiate if this car, on arrival, was not satisfactory in regard to either the price or the workmanship. Defendants accepted tho offer, but on November 19, 1920, they wrote slating that they would supply the car if plaintiff paid £6OO on delivery, and paid any excess if, on arrival of tho invoices and shipping papers, it was found that the price exceeded £6OO, but they guaranteed that the total price would not exceed £650. In the event of the price being less than £6OO, they would refund the sum overpaid. Plaintiff refused those terms, and informed defendants that he took it that they repudiated the contract. Defendants then returned plaintiff’s deposit of £lO, and plaintiff now sued for the sum of £2OO as damages for breach of tho contract.

Defendants denied that plaintiff suffered any damage for the breach of any contract between the parties. n^ Tl 1 ‘ ' Rowe appeared for plaintiff. and Mr G. Harper for defendants. Mr Row© said that the document on which plaintiff relied fulfilled all the requirements of a simple contract as defined by Cbitty.

Mr Harper, in reply to his Honor, said that the only definition of “approximate was in the dictionaries; thero was no definition by legal authorities.

His Honor said that it was something Ilk© a little more or less.” Plaintiff said that when defendants repudiated th© contract* model 501 cars sold 1,1 Christchurch for LII b.

Leonard B. Scott said that W. B. Scott and Co., who were the sole agents m New Zealand for the F.I.A.T. cars had ordered a number of them when plaintiff’s car was ordered. There had been considerable delay on account of Bolshevism in the works, which were in Italy, the workers at one time taking; possession of them. All the order 1 orms were for £SOO, but about thirty of the cars, he thought, had been accepted in New Zealand at the increased price, found necessary, namely, £6OO. the increase was caused by increased packing and other charges. When £SOO was stated as the price of the cars, he thought that that was the price at which his firm would be able to sell them. His firm’s profit on £6OO was practically in the same ratio as on £SOO.

Mr Harper said that the arrangemerit was not a contract for the purchase of this car. It was merely an order, and even in in there was no fixity of price. Plaintiff’s reservation on the order form, that ho could repudiate the order if the car, on arrival, was not satisfactory, showed that the price was not a fixed one. The sum of £SOO set down in the order was merely an estimate.

: Afr Rowe said that many orders certainly were contracts. An order was binding on both parties as a particular form of contract.

JJis Honor said that tilt; unfortunate reservation suggested that the price defendants might ask on the arrival of the ear would bo such that plaintiff could refuse to pay. Mr Howe said that payment of the deposit of £lO brought the transaction under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.

His Honor: Yes, but the price must bo fixed. There is no contract unless the parties agree on the price. Mr Rowe said that the price had been agreed uj)on in that case approximately. His Honor said that it seemed that the parties contemplated that the price of the car, on arrival in New Zealand, might be more than £SOO. and that plaintiff might refuse the fresh price. He concluded that the parties did not agree upon a final and definite price. Judgment would be for defendants with costs as per scale, witnesses* expenses and disbursements to be settled by the Registrar.