HIRE OF MILKING MACHINES.

Wairarapa Age, 29 July 1921, Page 7

HIRE OF MILKING MACHINES.

QUESTION OF A CONTRACT A civil case, having its original in the fall of primary produce was heard by Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., at the Magistrates Court, at Christchurch when the International Harvester Company of New Zealand, Ltd sued R. M. Bannister,farmer of Carterton, for a sum of £9l, as part of the hire money for a milking machine which defendant agreed to take under a hire purchase agreement. Before the date of delivery defendant asked that the contract should be cancelled as owing to the fall in prices, he had had to dispose of some of his dairy stock. Plaintiffs would not agree to a. cancellation. Mr W. J. Sim appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr H. C. Robinson, of .Mastertoil, of defendant. Mr Sim said that owing to the slump in the price of farm products several fanners were trying to reject milking machines that they had contracted to take under hire and purchase agreements. The case, therefore, was of importance to the plaintiff company. On November 25, defendant agreed to Hake a four cow machine, delivery to be given on June 1, 1921. Defendant agreed to hire the machine until February 1, 1924. and to pay rental amounting to £251. A sum of £lO was to be paid on June 1. £-11 on November 1, 1922. The plaintiffs claimed £9l, as it contended it was entitled to the full hiring charges up to Feburary 1, 1922, upon which date defendant had a right to return the machines if he so desired. On April 17, Bannister wrote to the plaintiffs asking that the order should be cancelled, as owing to the-enormous drop in prices had had to sell some of his dairy stock to make up the deficiency; therefore, he did not require the machine. The plaintiff company refused, and accordingly forwarded the machine, which was at present staying at the Carterton Railway Station. Mr Sim said that the question was whether defendant had a legal right to reject. The decision would be of importance to plaintiff and other companies. The contract was a binding one, and defendant was obliged to take delivery and hire until February 1, 1922, at least. Unless the plaintiff company was sure that a purchaser had no right of withdrawal after he had signed an agreement it could not carry on its business.. Frederick William Jones managing director of the plaintiff company and Reginald William Morgan, assistant manager, gave evidence.

Mr Robinson said defendant did not receive any notice of acceptance of his order. If the defendant had carried out the contract by taking the machine and returning it in February, 1922, as he was entitled to do, the plaintiff company would have suffered greater damages for they would have had to pay the cost of putting the machine together, and the machine would have been returned as second-hand. The damages suffered by the plaintiff company were practically nil. Defendant gave evidence.

To Mr. Sim : He had contracted to buy another make of machine from a firm that was financings him. Mr Sim said that the plaintif company was not suing for damages, but for hire money under a hire and purchase agreement. The Magistarte reserved his decision.