MILKING MACHINE CASE.

Wairarapa Age, 4 August 1921, Page 3

MILKING MACHINE CASE.

nominal damages awarded AGAINST WAIRABAPA FARMER. Mr S. E. McCarthy S.M.. has given judgment at Christchurch in the claim of the International Harvester Company of New Zealand (for whom Mr Sim appeared) against R. M. Bannister of Cartertun for alleges breach of a hire purchase agreement for the purchase of a Milking Plant. Mr H. C. Robinson, of Mastertoil appeared for the defendant. The evidence, the Magistrate stated, was that on November 25, the plaintiff company undertook to deliver to the defendant at his risk at tJuCarterton railway station the machinery described. The defendant undertook to hire the machinery until February 1, 1924, paying £5l on. de-

livery, and five half-yearly payments of £4O, a total of £251. If the defendant failed in paying the cash or handing over the promissory notes the plaintiff company could determine the hiring and treat the transaction as a cash sale, and sue for the hiring moneys as purchase money. After payment of all the prescribed rentals the machine was to become the property of the defendant. At any time after the payment of the £5l in cash and of the first promissory note of £4O the defendant had the right of determining the hiring by re-deliver-ing the machine in good repair, order and condition to the plaintiff company at the Carterton railway station, an 1 paying all hiring moneys then unpaid. After the signing of the agreement and before the dispatch of the plant, defendant wrote to the plaintiff company rescinding the sale. The defen-

dant did not suggest that there was anything wrong with the plant, but said that owing to the financial stringency he could not pay for it. The real reason for the rescission, however, was that defendant was being financed by a company which was agent for another milking plant and declined to finance the defendant to purchase a similar plant from a rival company. The sole dispute between the parties Mr M ’Carthy said, was, what was the true measure of damages for the defendant’s admitted breach of his contract. The Magistrate then proceeded to examine four methods of computing the damages that were suggested by the plaintiff and to discard each of them. He said that it was a well defined rule in respect of broken contracts of sale that the innocent vendor could not in the absence of express terms of authorisation, have the goods as well as the purchase money. The defendant, with a full knowledge of what he was doing, entered into the contract and deliberately broke it. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to nominal damages, which, •‘keeping all the facts in view, he would compute gii a somewhat liberal scale. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff company for £l5 and costs.