SALE OF MILK-RUN LEADS TO DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18466, 18 May 1928, Page 5

SALE OF MILK-RUN LEADS TO DISPUTE.

APPEAL MADE AGAINST LOWER COURT VERDICT. The sale of a milk-run at the Styx resulted in an appeal heard to-day by Mr Justice Adams. Both parties are milk-vendors. Davy Henry Law bought the milkrun from Ernest Halstead for £390. Part of the agreement was that Law was to purchase forty gallons of milk a day from Halstead. After Law had paid the sum of £390, he informed Halstead that he would no longer take the supply of milk from him.

In the Lower Court, Law stated that Halstead had wrongfully written to Halstead’s former customers announcing his intention to recommence the retailing of milk, and soliciting their custom and a considerable number of the customers ceased to purchase from Law, and he claimde £.50 on account of the value of the milk round having depreciated. The Magistrate non-suited Law. The Magistrate said that the reasonable interpretation of the agreement was that Law' was bound to take Halstead’s milk as long as Law remained a milk retailer, and Halstead a milk wholesaler, as otherwise Law, by paying off the whole purchase money on the day following the sale, could have rendered the clause nugatory. Law now appealed on the ground that the Magistrate’s decision was erroneous in law. Mr Upham appeared for appellant and Mr Lascelles for respondent. Mr Upham said that the terms of the purchase extended over two years. There was a collateral agreement that Law was to purchase his milk from Halstead for a term that was left indeterminate and perpetual. There was a default clause which gave Halstead the right to sell the round and recover from Law any shortage. That applied only as long as Law was paying. Some two years after the agreement the whole of the purchase money had been paid. Law, twelve months before that, had notified Halstead that he would not be taking his milk after he had finished paying for the round. Halstead had admitted that, apart from justification, he had been yrrong to canvass Law’s customers, and said that his justification was that he had cancelled the contract under the default clause, claiming that Law’s refusal to take milk from him was a breach of the contract, giving him the right to canvass the customers and get the round back again. Mr Lascelles said that Halstead was selling a milk round, chattels, and a supply of milk. Law was buying the round, chattels, and supply. It was intended that Law was to take Halstead’s milk as long as Law \yas a retailer and Halstead a wholesaler. Judgment was reserved.