PER DOZEN OR PER CASE?

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14820, 7 December 1921, Page 3

PER DOZEN OR PER CASE?

Our London Correspondent)

LONDQN, September 30

An intensely interesting illustration of the disastrous effects of a perfectly honest mis-understanding is given in J case dealt with by the Lord Chief Justice this week. Mr W. 11. Weight bought, or thought he bought, from the Government Disposal of Stores Department, 170,000' cases of pork and beans at 3s 9d per case of 48 tins. He paid £IOOO deposit on this wonderful ■bargain and hurried off to secure a quick profit. Mr Hardy, a city merchant, was only 100 ready. He bought the lot at 4 s 3d per case, leaving a nice profit of £4250 to the first buyer. Mr Weight shook hands with himself very heartily, wc have no doubt, and went home —there to find a telegram from the Disposals Department slating that there had been a mistake, that the price was 3s 9d per dozen tins, not per case. In the meanwhile Mr Hardy had been busy, and soon found a purchaser for export at 10s a case. Here vjjas a slate of things. '"Mr Weight wanted delivery at 3s 9d per case, so that he might give delivery to Mr Hardy at 4s 3d and pocket his profit of £4250 on a £32,000 transaction. Mr Hardy wanted delivery from Mr Weight at 4s 3d, and seems to have intimated that if h'c did not get it Mr Weight would have to pay him £106,250 for lost profit on his sale for export at 10s a case. We do not know how the last buyer took matters, but his point of view would certainly be important in its bearing on the triplicated transaction which he would render quadralatcral if he effected a selling operation of his own. Asone cannot sue the King, Mr Weight had to proceed by petition of right. In this he figured as a "suppliant" and sought £4250 by way of damages and an indemnity in respect of any claim made by Mr Hardy. He lost his case. The Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment, said that'll, was agreed that the normal unit for dealings in this class of goods was dozens and not cases. In his opinion, none of the documents which had passed amounted to a contract, or to an acceptance of the suppliant's offer. When the offer was made the Controller of the Department naturally desired to investigate the standing of the suppliant, and he would have been neglecting his duly as a Crown official if ho had not done so, seeing that £IOO,OOO • was involved. While Mr Weight had cases in his mind, the Controller never thought of anything but dozens. It was a "mere mistake" that he did not notice that the word "cases" had been inserted in the document making an offer of 3s 9d, but the document was not a contract, but when he found out the mistake he notified the suppliant.- The petition failed; there was no binding contract on the Crown; the suppliant was not entitled to any damages; and judgment must be entered for the Crown, with costs. We should very much like to sec that judgment reviewed in the Appeal Court. '