Wong Sing-cha, manager of the plaintiff firm, was then called and stated that he-had been engaged in the egg products trade for 10 years, and had had dealings with defendants since November, 1990., Witness described various contracts entered into and added that, when a sale for sterling had been agreed upon, it was always the business of the buyer to settle exchange on witness's part.
With reference to the contract, dated August 16, witness agreed to sell at 4/- per Ib, cif. London, but suggested that defendants should obtain a better price if possible. The cargo had been placed on board some days previously, on consignment through defendants. In such cases, it was usual for the price not. to be settled until after the goods had been disposed of in London. The contract now in question was a consignment converted into a sale, and witness should directly afterwards have been paid the sale price, £2,800. Ho first asked for payment about a week after shipment. At first defendants said they had to telegraph to London for a remittance; then. about the end of September, they said they had credit on other goods against plaintiff. Witness asked them to settle the exchange, as soon as the firm offer was accepted, and he Was given to understand that this was dono at 6/14d. Witness repudiated the claims which defendants advanced. It was not until legal proceedings were begun that plaintiff was informed that defendants had sold the goods on account of plaintiff, for £2,265.
Mr. Ward:—If this had been in out and out sale you would have been entitled to payment immed-lately on the goods being shipped?—Yes.
Why, then, did you want to settle exchange from August to December?—It allowed time for delay in their making payment to If this was an out and out sale, why did you write asking defendants to do a little better than 4/- if possible?—It is not unusual to make such a request.
His Lordship:—I must - confess the answer does not explain things
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.