RETAILERS’ PROBLEMS IN KEEPING CHECK ON PRICE ORDERS

Wanganui Chronicle, 25 May 1948, Page 6

RETAILERS’ PROBLEMS IN KEEPING CHECK ON PRICE ORDERS

Difficulties facing retailors in keeping a check on numerous price orders which were being issued were stressed by counsel when several prosecutions for breaches of the Control of Prices Act, 1947. were dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court, Wanganui, yesterday. After heaing submissions, Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M. U commented that in all the cases he had heard there had been a lack of intention to overcharge. Offences were due to negligence on the part of employees, or the difficulty experienced in keeping a check on prices which were MStetiy changing. For this reason the penalties had not been heavy. Fines totalling £9, with Crown solicitor’s fees, £4 4s, and Court costs £2 10s, were imposed on Thomas Edward Dewe, grocer, Feilding, who admitted five charges of selling goods at higher than the authorised prices. D. F. Pennington, Ltd., general storekeepers, Bulls, were fined a total of £5 on three charges, Crown solicitor’s fees amounting to £3 3s, and Court costs £1 V s - Jack Wheeler Marsh, storekeeper, Fordell, who was also faced with three charges, was fined a total of £5, with Crown solicitor’s fees, £3 3s, and Court costs 30s. Kee Henry, fruiterer, Guyton Street, was fined £1 for offering goods for sale in excess of the authorised price, and also £1 for selling at a higher price that that authorised. On each of two fuurther charges of failing to display placards or labels stating the retail prices of vegetables, he was fined 10s. Fines totalled £3, Crown solicitor’s fees amounted to £3 3s 6d, and Court costs £2. The Farm Equipment Co., Wanganui, on one charge of selling at a higher price than that authorised, was fined £3, with costs amounting to £2 12s. Crown solocitor’s fees amounted to £2 2s. OVERCHARGES ON GROCERIES. Mr. Bain said that the charges against Dewe related to overcharges or several grocery lines, but only five hat. been brought out of a great many. Mr. R. E. Jack, on behalf of Dewe, submitted that there was no intention of defeating the regulations and the prosecutions had followed an inspection of defendant’s books. The magistrate: How does it come about that the charges are being heard in Wanganui? Mr. Bain: I laid the informations here. Mr. Jack said the charges related to goods which had been in short supply. When they arrived customers were clamouring for them and defendant sold them before the invoices came to hand. Later, he credited a number of customers with the overcharges. The magistrate said he could understand difficulties arising in remote country districts, but this would hardly apply in Feilding. Referring to the charge against the Farm Equipment Co., Mr. Bain said that the firm sold li tons of seed potatoes for £39 15s, whereas the correct price was £2B 13s Bd, an overcharge of £ll Is 4d. The price order in question, however, was a very complicated one and it was quite apparent that the potatoes had been charged out by a clerk under a different section than the one authorised. “This was merely a mistake which was perfectly natural in the circumstances, and I understand that the overcharge has been refunded,” Mr. Bain added. “Had the informant fbone to defendant in the first place there may not have been a prosecution.” “In this case there is a complete absence of any intention to overcharge,” said Mr. V. B. Willis. An error arose in costing and a refund had been made. Had the matter been referred to the store manager or the managing director, the mistake would not have occurred. The potatoes were sent direct from the wholesalers in Wellington to the consumer.’ “It is true that there are exceptional circumstances in this case and that it is very different from others,” said the magistrate. Mr Bain submitted that the charges against Marsh related to an over* charge of 3d on the sale ofc a tm of peaches, 2id on a tin of marmalade, and 6d on 21b of sultanas. In all, 19 breaches were discovered by the inspector. “COMPLICATED ORDERS.” Mr. N. M. Izard said that defendant was formerly a farmer, but gave up this occupation because of ill health and in April last year took over the store at Fordell. “He runs this business single-handed and the offences were not due to the fault of defendant, but to the complicated nature of the price orders and the way they are issued,’ Mr. Izard added. The magistrate: There is a good deal to be said for that. “I submit that it is impossible for a man carrying on a general store single-handed to keep track of every price order issued,” counsel added. When defendant took over the business 670 price orders were in force and since then about 200 had been issued. Defendant was not a member of the association and some of his goods were marked up at below cost, said Mr. Bain. “He got a good deal of benefit out of the inspector s visit because he was able to mark the goods up where he was not charging enough,” Mr. Bain added. “In all these cases the Court endeavoured to take into consideration the locality and the extent of the difficulties,” said the magistrate, who added that the public may think that there were discrepancies in the fipes imposed. This could not be judged properly, however, unless all the circumstances were known. Referring to the charges of Kee Henry, Mr. Bain submitted that in one was an overcharge of id for parsnips and in another lid for carrots. Defendant had also failed to display tickets on some of his goods. Defendant was not represented by counsel, but in a letter to the Court stated that he endeavoured to keep within the law . D. F. Pennington, Ltd., had overcharged sid on a packet of candles, lid on a tin of peaches and id on a pound of currants, said Mr. Bain. ‘These are only some of a number of breaches,” he added. It was unfortunate that the inspector made his visit at a time when the >ales tax on foodstuffs had been removed, said Mr. B. C. Haggitt. Retailers at this time were confronted with pages of amendments and alterations to prices which had been issued to them. Difficulties associated with keeping a check on price orders were also accentuated by shortages of staff. Since the date in question, however, the Master Grocers’ Association had compiled a price book and it was hoped that this would ease the situation. "There was no intention on the part of defendant to evade the law,” Mr. Haggitt added. “They deal with more than 2000 lines, are visited regularly by inspectors and this is the first time there has been a prosecution against them.” Mr, Bo; These prosecutions aide

brought for no other reason than the stabilisation of prices, which must be maintained. "In all the cases of this kind that. I have heard in Wanganui and elsewhere in the district there has been a lack of any intention to overcharge,” said the magistrate, who added that offences were due rather to negligence on the part of employees, or a difficulty in keeping a check on prices which were changing so constantly. Foi that reason penalties had not been heavy.