ARCOS, LTD. v. LONDON & NORTHERN TRADING COMPANY, LTD.

(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 168

KING'S BENCH DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice MacKinnon.

Sale of goods (pitprops)-Rejection by buyers (defendants)-Sale by plaintiffs of "entire production of pitprops available for 1931 shipment"-Various lengths-Top diameters: 212 in.-312 in. to 212 in.-11 in.-"(22) In the event of any dispute arising in connection with measurement or acceptance of goods as to quantity, quality, condition or dimensions, such dispute shall be referred to the decision of the gosbracker at port of loading, whose ruling shall be final and binding on both parties"-Preliminary questions for the Court: (1) Whether the defendants were bound to accept timber felled earlier than the winter of 1930/31; (2) Whether the defendants were entitled to receive in each shipment or parcel of a particular length props ranging fairly between specified extreme diameters of tops for such lengths so that by such range there should be approximately 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin top diameters; (3) (a) What questions were within the jurisdiction of the gosbracker, and in particular whether he had jurisdiction to decide questions (1) and (2); (b) Whether the decisions relied on by the plaintiffs were decisions of the gosbracker; (c) Whether the circumstances in which the said decisions were obtained and/or given as shown by the documents disclosed by the plaintiff were such as to entitle the defendants to say they were not bound by such decisions; and (d) To what extent the decisions of the gosbracker are binding on the defendants, if at all-Held, as to (1), that the plaintiffs were entitled to ship and that the defendants (subject to their right of rejection on account of quality or condition) were bound to accept timber felled before the winter of 1930; as to (2), that the defendants were entitled to receive a fair range of the specified sizes, approximating 50 per cent. thick and 50 per cent. thin top diameters; as to (3a) and (3d), that the only questions within the jurisdiction of the gosbracker were questions of quantity, quality, condition or dimensions; as to (3b), that whether decisions of the gosbracker or gos inspector they were decisions by the person designated under Clause 22; as to (3c), that the question depended on circumstances of which his Lordship was not informed, and therefore he could not answer it-No costs awarded.