North Coast Weekly Letter

Question: "salesman wired us en order for a transit car he'had sold to a customer. We wired him 'entering order.' As this particular, cer was sold previously, howev€r' we made a mill shipment of this order, papers on which were returned by customer with statement they could not use mill shipment and had secured rush requirements, so we diverted this car elsewhere. Salesmen contends he is entitled to his commission, with which we cannot agree. Are we not correct in our stand ?" \

Answer: In a similar case recently arbitrated (Decision 103, Docket ,lO5), the committee decided: "A contract did exist between the various parties for a transit car. Shipper should have advised the parties that he had no transii car to supply, instead of wiring 'entering.order.' Therefore, salesman is entitled to his commissioh."

Ouestion: "What is the custom in making final settle-iitr with mills when whotesaler has purchased 'less 5/o commission, underweights to mill to final destination?' Is the wholesaler entitlea to 5% commission on the underweights ?"

A-nswer: While there are some excePtions to the rule, it is the general custom for wholesalers, in such cases, -to deduct tie |Vo commission on the net amount of the invoice after deducting actual freight. Wholesalers who make a general practice of purchasing this way place a notation orr their order covering this feature clearly, and ls the question arises frequently, it is always I good policy- to rirake such notation on mill orders to avoid any misunderstanding.

Quesiion: "Failure on the part of our customer to furnish proper affidavit covering damages to a shipment (com- nf"in, on which they registered with us on arrival of car bver six months agd; ha-t preyented us from filing freight claim against the railroad corfipany within the 9ix months time limit allowed for the filiig of such claims. Can we go back at this customer and collect our loss from him on Iccount of his delay in furnishing affidavit which held up the filing of this claim until the time limit had expired?"

AnswCr: Claim on this shipment could have and should have heen filed promptly upon receipt of customer's repori and freight bill. It is not necessary to wait for the supporting affidavit, as this can be furnished later when you _se- cuie it. We do hot think it is too late yet to file claim. You are allowed two years from date of delivery to file damage claims.

Qu-stion: "Is it necessary, or is it in any way helpful, to have a note or an accepted draft protested, regard being had only to the maker of the note or the acceptor of the draft ?"

Answer: The object of a protest is to inform a Person who is secondarily liable upon a bill or note that the person primarily liable has been properly called upon and has refuied to Dav the amount. There could be no obiect in refuied pay object conveving formal information of this kind to the parties conveying partles primarily liable, because they know what the facts are; prrmarrly lrable, Decause tney Know wnat f,ne racts they know that demand has been duly made of them and thai thev have failed to complv with it. Accordinelv, it is thai they Accordingly, held that protest and notice are not necessary to charg"the maker of a promissory note or the acceptor of a bill of exchange.

ROY A. DAILEY, Manager North Coast District.