Judge Criticizes B.T.C. Removal Contract : Counter-claim Lodged
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AT Westminster County Court last week Judge Dale criticized the type of contract which the British Transport Commission required to be signed when undertaking a furniture removal. He was hearing an application by the British Transport Commission in connection with an action against Mr. A. Mackey, 5 Albion Villas, Folkestone. The Commission asked that a counterclaim for damages by Mr. Mackey should be stayed pending arbitration.
It Was stated that a contract was made between Pickfords and Mrs. Mackey, now deceased, for the removal of furniture. The account had not been paid.
For Mr. Mackey, Mr. N. Ward-Jones said that damage had been done to pieces of furniture in transit. Mr. Mackey was quite prepared to pay the account—about £22—if the cost of the damage were offset.
The plaintiffs said that a claim against the Commission should not be a reason for deferring payment. Mr. Ward-Jones asked that the counterclaim should not be set aside but that the whole action should be adjourned until the counter-claim had been arbitrated. Once it had been settled, there would be no question about Mr. Mackey paying the Commission.
Judge Dale commented that the Commission had thought fit to have any questions of negligence on their part tried by arbitration instead of in open court. Any charge that they had been negligent was tried behind closed doors so that people would not know what went on.
He did not think it fair that Mr. Mackey should be expected to pay for goods that were damaged. " Supposing the Commission ask for £10 for the cost of transit of goods which they smash up to the tune of MO, Is it fair that the person must pay the 110 although the Commission might have to pay him £100 afterwards? I cannot deal with public bodies merely on the basis that I am sure they will act satisfactorily. They come under the same rules as everybody, else," the judge said.
He adjourned the case sine die on the undertaking that Mr. Mackey would pursue his counter-claim "with due diligence."