ROBYN PARKES
A most interesting court case determining who was to be held responsible for the results of a crop began in July 1898 at the Magistrates Court in Brightwater before Mr Wilson Heaps, S.M. Messrs Millard and Satherley purchased 8lb of brown Spanish onion seed, paying £2, from N. Dodgshun’s Beehive Importing Company at Brightwater.
They then sowed the seed which ultimately grew a crop that was deemed to be worthless, unsaleable, and useless onions. This prompted them to take the seller, Dodgshun, to court claiming £70 for damages, (ten tons of anticipated onions at £7 per ton). C. Harley represented the plaintiffs and Mr Pitt the defendant.
The plaintiff’s claim was based on the seed appearing to be the reliable brown Spanish onion seed, and that to comply with the contract the seed should have been such and should have produced, under good treatment and conditions, sellable brown Spanish onions. Satherley stated that he was a grower of 20 years’ experience and never had a failure and that he had done everything properly through the sowing, growing and cultivation stages.
The defendant contended that although he sold brown Spanish onion seed to the plaintiffs, there was no warranty, either implied or expressed given, and that it was improbable that for the sake of making a sale of £2, he would knowingly or possibly lay himself open to such a claim as the £70 made against him.
After arguments, Mr Heaps found for the plaintiffs believing the vendee made known to the vendor the purpose for which the seed was required. There was an implied condition that the seed should be fit for the purpose.
The weight of evidence was against the defendant that the defective cultivation together with unfavourable climatic effect was the cause of the crop failure. Damages were awarded to the plaintiffs of £70. An appeal was lodged including the excessiveness of the damages. Those in the district who dealt in seeds watched the case closely with trepidation in regard to guarantees either expressed or implied.
Dealers were startled at the possibility of being held responsible for 10 or 20 times the value of the commodity they had sold in good faith and were of the view that the seed trade would be paralysed.
In September the appeal went before Judge Robinson of the District Court with requests from Dodgshun’s lawyer to call additional witnesses, who had also purchased the seed and grown successful crops. This was denied and the appeal was adjourned again, finally being heard in October. Summing up, Mr Harley stated that there had been ample evidence for the Magistrate’s original decision, and it was not the practice for superior courts to overrule findings of lower courts. After further remarks from Mr Pitt, His Honor delivered judgment.
He stated “the Magistrate at Brightwater had relied to a great extent on The Sale of Goods Act 1896, for his interpretation of the contract, but in his (the judge’s opinion) the contract was that the plaintiffs were entitled to receive brown Spanish onion seed of merchantable quality that would germinate, and that was about all. If sale of seed implied a guarantee of a profitable crop, no person would undertake the risk of dealing in seeds”.
The appeal was sustained, and the judgment of the lower court set aside. The plaintiffs responded with an unsuccessful appeal to the supreme court but were told the decision of the former court could not be reversed except by the full court, and there, after a long battle, the matter ended.
