Chinese Awarded $240,000 Damages against an American Corporation In the United States Court for China on Wednesday, his Honour Judge Lobingier delivered judg ment in the case of Chin Hsing-hun v. the Shippers Commercial Corporation, His Honour said:
The complaint in this cause alleges: "On September 9, 1919, defendant contracted with petitioner to give him the exclusive agency for the sale of indigo in North China, for 10 years, requiring him to take' 4,800 parels of indigo yearly during that period. The defendant agreed to pay a commission of $5 per barrel amd 2 per cent. on the sale price."
This averment is expressly admitted in the answer. But for such admission we should incline to doubt whether the contract really requires all that is here alleged. But that point needs no further consideration in view of the admission.
The answer invokes by way of defence the following provision of the contract:
"8. The agent agrees to take up the whole of the goods if the largo sample is satisfactory to him and then he will qive to the firm a cash deposit of $10,000,"
Plaintiff in his reply "Admits that he has not paid $10,000 to the defendant but denies that repeated demands or any demand has been made for such payment, and denies that the failure to make such payment constitutes a breach of said contract.'?
He further alleges "that on or about January 9, 1920, defendant waived the payment of $10,000, until the arrival of a shipment of 500 barrels of indigo," etc.
In attempting to prove this alleged waiver plaintiff was met with the objection that he was endeavouring to vary the terms of a written instrument. But as we view the clause in question, it does not impose the payment of the $10,000 as @ condition precedent to the delivery of any goods. As we read it "the agent agrees to take up the whole of the goods... and then he will give to the firm a cash deposit of $10,000." The rest of the clause appears to be merely parenthetical and the payment 9f the cash deposit seems at most to be no more than concomitant with delivery.
The practical construction given it by the parties themselves confirms this view. For.. while the answer alleges "repeated demands" were made for this cash deposit this, as we have seen is expressly denied in the reply. Moreover, so late as March 19, 1920, after the contract had been in force more than six months defendant's manager wrote plaintiff expressing his regret that it was "impossible for us import indigo into China at this time" giving as a reason "strikes and the demoralized condition of sources of supply." There is no suggestion here nor in any other
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.