Clerk Could Make Contract
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A TRANSPORT clerk who entered .1-1 into a laundry agreement on his employers' behalf had the necessary authority to put their name on the contract, Judge R. H. Norris ruled at Newcastle upon Tyne, last week. He gave judgment for the Supreme Overall Service (Midlands), Ltd., when they claimed for work done and goods supplied to P. G. Walton, Ltd., Clayton Street, Newcastle.
Mr. E. W. Culwiek, for the laundry, said their sates manager visited Walton's branch office at Walsall in 1956 and met a Mr. Moody, who introduced himself as branch manager. Between them they drew up a one-year contract under which clean overalls would be supplied weekly to 12 men at the depot. This started in November, 1956, but was terminated by the haulage company four months later when payment was outstanding and the overalls had not been returned.
Mr. Philip Walton, managing director of the haulage company, said he thought the clean-overall service was a private arrangement between Moody and the men. Mr. P. W. Evans, for the company, said Moody had no authority to put his employers' name on the order, as he was only a clerk. Walton's knew nothing about the. transaction until he left their employ;
Awarding the laundry 131 12s. 6d., the judge said Moody had the necessary authority whether he was a clerk or a branch manager. He was in charge of the Walsall branch, and supervising overalls and laundering would be a thing he dealt with. The laundry had claimed £57 5s.
POTTERY CONCERN REFUSED NEW B LICENCE ECAUSE empty running made their C-licence operations to the Potteries uneconomic, the Goovean and Restowrack China Clay Co., Ltd., St. Austell, Cornwall, lasf week sought a new B licence. They asked the Western Licensing Authority, Mr, S. W. Nelson, to grant return loads of general goods from Staffordshire, Bristol and Avonmouth for delivery within 10 miles.
For the company, Mr. G. D. Pearce stressed that they did not want to become general hauliers. They produced 50,000 tons of china clay and stone a year, of which 30 per cent. went to the Potteries.
Because of difficulty in placing the traffic they sometimes had to use their own vehicles and had found that it was uneconomic for a 7-tonner to return empty.
Mr. Peter Richards, of Richards and Osborne, Ltd„ hauliers, supported the application. He explained that he had five Vehicles available for the type of work in question, but he could not afford to buy any more.
Refusing the application, Mr. Nelson said no evidence of need had been put forward by the applicant.