26 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



September 10, 1U21 



However, this is not intended to give the idea that furniture 

 muiiut'acturers are pessimistic over the outlook. It means merely 

 that they are watching the situation just as carefully as they 

 watched it a year ago and perhaps even more so. It means that 

 they are waiting the results which their salesmen may be able to 

 obtain on the road and meantime they are keeping right along 

 lilri;illy sawing wood and then putting it together again in the 

 tdriii of good furniture. 



Salesmen as they were leaving for their road trips were all 

 optimism. More than one of them predicted he would turn in tlie 

 biggest business he ever wrote in a single trip. They figure that 

 the unusually hot summer has driven business away from the cities 

 and that with the coming of fall and cooler weather business gen- 

 erally will show a marked improvement, wliicli will be reflected in 

 the furniture business as well as in other lines. 



'^Lumber Trade Customs 



*As EstdhUahi'd hy tfic Arhitration Dcpa^'tmcnt of the American Whole- 

 sale Lumhcr Association, Chicago 



Cancellation of Order 

 The Facts 



On June 12, 1920, Ji northern wholesaler mailed an order to a sontbern 

 wholesaler for one carload, or 15 to, 20 M ft. 4i^x5y» — 16 ft. merchant- 

 able 1905 longleaf yellow pine rough in response to latter's quotation 

 (hereon, which stated that prompt shipment could be made. Seller mailed 

 buyer formal ucknowledyment of the order on June 16, in which he stated 

 he would ship promptly. On same date, June 16, buyer wrote seller In 

 reference to the orders as follows : 



"I'lease hold up cutting on this order. We have wonl fmm our cus- 

 tomer this morning that, on account of heavy falling off of their orders, 

 they may hav*^ more than a sntHcient supply <m hand and will let us knt)\v 

 in a few weeks, and at which time we will advise you either to cancel the 

 order or proceed with its execution." 



This letter was received by seller on June IS, who made no reply to 

 same, but on June 23 mailed order to his mill connections with instructions 

 to cut and ship same as quickly as possible. 



On July 23 seller wrote buyer as follows: "Referring to your order 

 No. 623, our No. S54, please advise if it will now be satisfactory to ship 

 this stock out." On same date seller wrote mill to hold up cutting. 



Huyer replied to above on July 26, stating that the situation still 

 remained the same as it was on June 16, but that he would try and per- 

 suade his customers to permit shipments of one nujre car "so we can use 

 the car placed with you." lie also again cautioned seller not to cut any 

 of the stock until buyer advisoil he could use it. 



Seller replied stating he had placed order with his mill ; that he could not 

 therefore hold up shipment indefinitely and insisted That immediate ship- 

 ping directions be given on same. 



Upon receipt of the latter on July 31 buyer wrote seller to cancel the 

 order, as his customer had wired that he could not use the stock. 



Meauw^hile seller's mill advised him on July 31 that he had cut about 

 6,000 feet on the order before receiving instructions to hold up on same. 



Considerable correspondence then followed in which seller made an 

 unsuccessful effort to secure an adjustment of the matter with buyer. 

 During this correspondence seller only demanded that buyer pay him for 

 the stock out at price seller had agreed to pay the mill, thr s«-Ib'r waiving 

 his profit in the transaction. 



During this time the mill was insisting on some action, eilhcr by per- 

 ndtting him to ship or paying him for stock <'ut. 



The Dispute 



The buyer contended : First, that having notified seller not to proceed 

 with the order, before the latter had done anything towards its execu- 

 tion, no actual damage should have resulted from his act. Second, tha't 

 seller having failed to notify him promptly upon i-eceipt of bis instruc- 

 tions of June 16 to the effect that same would not be complied with and 

 seller having written him July 23 for permission to .proceed, led buyer to 

 believe that his request was being complieil with, and that the seller by 

 such action did in fact acquiesce in buyer's request to hold up cutting. 

 with option to caueel. 



Seller contende<l that the original contract was the only one ever 

 entered into, inasmuch as he had refrained from specifically accepting 

 buyer's subsequent proposal: and that he was under no obligation to even 

 consider any suggestion from buyer that original contract be held Ih 

 abeyance or cancelled, but that he did hold up on some for a time as a 

 voluntary courtesy or accommodation to buyer. He therefore contended 

 that he should Ije paid in full at contract price for the 5,940 feet which 

 had been cut, the same to t)c the property of buyer to dispose of as he 

 might see fit. 



One of the most strilsing paragraphs in Mr. jkorman'&^lettel' is given 

 herewith: ' ' ■ . -. ; 



Complainants further say that as a result of- the rate and 'rate itdjust- 

 ments herein complained of the mills' aiui plants' of complainants wliich 

 have the long hauls to the great consumijig jiMirkets, arechise^l down and 

 many of them nailed up : that but little hardwood lumber and forest 

 products is now being produced in the South ; that*"many of the nulls are 



facing ruin and some of the largest are already in the hands of receivers; 

 tliat hardwood lumber and forest prodqcts are selling at these mills hielow 

 Ihe cost of production, but, even at these ruinous prici*s. are unable to pay 

 present exorbitant freight charges and compete with short haul production 

 and substitutes ; that the delay incident to the usual procedure in handling 

 formal complaints will be fatal to the complainants and injurious to the 

 defendants, since, if lumber and forest products are to be available fur 

 nuirket and transportation during the coming winter and spring, the logs 

 must lie moved to the mills heforr fall rains set In. 



The Decision 



Held, that inasnuich as seller had a bonafide legal order for a carload of 

 lumber from buyer, properly acknowledged, and afterwards received an 

 order to hold up cutting, seller had a perfect right to either refuse to hold 

 up cutting, or refuse to cancel the order, or go ahead and cut it ami ship 

 it out according to the original order received by him ; or, in event that 

 he had been willing to grant buyer's request of June 16, he had the right 

 to demand of buyer the profit he would have made had the order been 

 tilled according to contract. 



Seller did not take either one of these alternatives, but five days after 

 receiving buyer's request to hold up with possibility of cancellation later, 

 he placed the order with the mill and allowed the mill to cut some special 

 pieces he knew full well that his customer might not be able to take. 

 Seller, however, had no legal or moral right to take any action whatsover 

 that would jeopardize the buyer's interests. It is therefore held : 



First, that inasmuch as seller did not refuse to hold up cutting on the 

 order; neither did he cut and ship out the stock according to the con- 

 tract: neither did he demand the profit he had in the order; and inas- 

 much as any loss on the entire transaction was caustMl through the action 

 of seller alone, all of w*hich could have been very easily avoiiled had he 

 given buyer the consideration thai is due a buyer from a seller, there would 

 not have been any loss whatever. 



Second, inasmuch as buyer used every reasonable effort to prevent loss 

 Ity stopping, as he supposed, the cutting of this special material, and inas- 

 much as seller did not place the order for this special cutting with the mill 

 for five days after he had received request "not to cut it," the fault lies 

 entirely with seller and he is not entitled to any redress whatever. 



Request of Buyer to Substitute Transit Cars for Mill Shipment. 

 Decision No. 21— Docket No. 90 



THE FACTS: On Oct«.l.er 16. 1020. a whub'sah-r mailetl an inquiry to 

 a manufacturer for 1x4 No. 2 Common Yellow Pine S2S : on October 16, 

 the latter quoted a delivered price of $27.50 per M feet. The wholesaler 

 thereupon wired the manufacturer a counter-offer of .?26.50 for one car. 

 which the latter promptly accepted by wire, mailing a formal acknowl- 

 edgment of the order the following day. Xo time of shipment was specified 

 by either party. 



On October 25. the buyer wired the seller to increase the order to two 

 cars and to rush shipment, quoting seller's order number as shown on 

 the latter's formal a<*knowledgment. The addition was accepted the same 

 day and a formal acknowledgment mailed. 



It was alleged by the buyer that shortly after this addition was made, 

 but before invoice was received for either car, he received from the seller 

 a stock list showing two similar cars as being in transit or about to be 

 placed in transit. The price quoted in this circular was $25.50, or $1.00 

 per thousand less than that specified in buyer's order. The buyer stated, 

 that inasmuch as he was in a hurry for shipments and do definite time 

 had been given on his mill shipment orders, he immediately mailed selJef 

 the list referred to, with pencil notation thereon, requesting that these two 

 cars be applied on his order and at the lower price shown. The seller 

 alleged he had no reconl or recollection of having received such a request 

 and" neither rttfirmed nor denied having received the same. 



The bills of lading and other evidence submitted shewed that the first 

 car on the order was placed for loading on October 25. and that loading 

 was ctmipleted October 27, although the car was not pulled out by the 

 railroad and bill of lading signed until October 30. The second car was 

 lihiced October 30 and loading completed November 2 i October 31 was 

 Sun(hiy). It was pulled out and bill of lading signed on November 3. 



The first car was invoiced at $25.50. the price contained in the,cir<'ular 

 referral to. The^ second car, however, was invoiced at original contract 

 price, or $26.50. ' 



THK C(tNTROVERSY : The buyer contended that the tran.«1t ears 



should have iieen applied on his order and invoiced at the lower price 



of $25.50. on the ground that he had requested this substitution. Although 



Yifi, neyer received ,an acceptance or even an acknowledgment of this re- 



iContinttcd on pof/c 2S) ' 



