28 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



November 2a. 1921 



Lumber Trade Customs 



These "Customs" are established Sj/ decisions rendered bji the Arbitration 

 Department of the American Wholesale Lumber Association, 



Wholesaler's Obligation to Ship in Time Agreed 



THE FACTS : On April 12. 1921. a northern buyer sent an order to a 

 southern wholesaler for a car of No. 1 Common Selects Plain Red Gum for 

 shipment "at once." Seller accepted the order promptly for shipment "at 

 once." 



Then followed considerable correspondence during April and May 

 wherein buyer repeatedly urged seller to make shipment and the latter 

 repeatedly promised early delivery. On June 3 buyer wrote seller bringing 

 specific attention to the long delay and insisted that quick shipment must 

 be made. 



Not having received invoice, buyer notified seller on June 15 that unless 

 the latter gave him car number inside of ten days buyer would then pur- 

 chase elsewhere for seller's account. Seller replied on June 18 bringing 

 attention to numerous difficulties he had had with his mill connections in 

 connection with the execution of the order, but that he would surely wire 

 car number within the following week. Shipment was not made within 

 that time and therefore buyer purchased car elsewhere at a loss of $4o.59, 

 sending seller a bill therefor on July 6. Seller then advised that he had 

 the car ready in accordance with previous promises and insisted that buyer 

 accept same. 



THE DISPUTE : The buyer contended that, having allowed the order 

 to remain with seller more than sixty days, he had thereby given him ample 

 time within which to fill an order for shipment "at once." Furthermore, 

 that having given seller an additional ten days' grace, buyer Insisted that 

 he was well within his rights in purchasing elsewhere for seller's account. 

 Therefore, buyer contended he should not be required to accept shipment 

 from seller after June 25, and that his bill for loss incurred through replace- 

 ment should be paid. Buyer furthermore contended that seller alone was 

 responsible to him for proper execution of the order and that he was in 

 nowii^ interested in or responsible for the difficulties seller might have 

 had with his mill connections. 



The seller's contention was that his mill connection suffered considerable 

 delay in the execution of the order for causes beyond its control, that the 

 stock called for in the order was very scarce in that section so that it was 

 not convenient for him to secure same elsewhere and that, therefore, he 

 should not be held responsible for the delay. Seller insisted that he had 

 put forth a fair effort towards executing the order as originally contem- 

 plated and felt that buyer was, under all the circumstances, unreasonable 

 in cancelling same, particularly after seller had finally succeeded in replac- 

 ing it for early delivery. Therefore, seller contended that he should not 

 be held liable for loss incurred through buyer's repurchase, nor suffer loss 

 of profit through cancellation. 



THE DECISION : It is held, first : There was no dispute as to the fact 

 that the original contract called for shipment "at once." 



Second : Buyer, having allowed seller a period of sixty days within 

 which to make shipment, thereby gave more than reasonable consideration 

 to seller on an order accepted for shipment "at once." 



Third : Failure to ship within a reasonable time renders seller respons- 

 ible for any loss thereby incurred by the buyer. Therefore, buyer. In pur- 

 chasing elsewhere for seller's account, was entirely within his rights, he 

 having waited sixty days for shipment and given due notice of his inten- 

 tion to take such action. 



Fourth : That price paid by buyer in repurchasing the car, which was 

 $3.00 per thousand in excess of the original contract price, represented the 

 fair market value of the stock in question at the time of repurchase. 



It is therefore held, that seller should pay buyer the amount of loss 

 incurred, $45.59, as claimed, together with interest thereon at 6 per cent 

 from July 6, 1921. 



It is further held, that the seller in this case, being a wholesaler with 

 access to many stocks of lumber at different mills, and with knowledge of 

 the grades sold by them, did not show proper diligence towards making 

 delivery within the time agreed upon. Failure on the seller's part to 

 secure the material from one mill did not prevent his securing it from some 

 other shipper, which seller should have done under the terms and conditions 

 of the contract. 



It is held further, that the prime function of the wholesaler was violated 

 by the seller in this case, as the buyer is not responsible for the difficulties 

 which may arise between a wholesaler and his mill connections. The whole- 

 saler should fulfill his contracts regardless of conditions that may arise 

 with his source of supply, unless the contract calls for the stock of a specific 

 mill, and wherein due knowledge has been given the buyer as to the source 

 of supply and the conditions under which such mill might operate. 



Dispute Over Agent's Authority 



The Facts : On May 24, 1920, a northern wholesaler purchased through 

 his agent from a southern manufacturer two carloads of special cut stock. 

 Shipments were made on July 22 and 27 and totaled about 20,000 feet. 



On September 2 the buyer wrote his southern agent to ask the mill to 

 enter order for two additional cars, inasmuch as his customer desired about 



40.000 feet in all, only half of which had been shipped on original order. 



On September 4 buyer's agent wrote buyer that he had already asked 

 the mill to ship a third car on the original order in view of the very small 

 cars shipped, and that the mill had agreed to do this. However, on the 

 same date, buyer's agent wrote seller as follows : 



"On this order you shipped two small cars of timber and we trust you 

 are going to ship a third car to make up for the size of the cars you did 

 ship. Will you please let us know If you have made this shipment, and 

 if you wish we can give you an additional order for two small cars or one 

 large car. Please let us hear from you right away." 



Seller replied promptly as follows : 



"Replying to your favor of the 4th, your order 60S8-24S9, wish to advise 

 that we have another car now ready on this and will ship now in a few 

 days. We will accept an order tor two more small cars." 



In accordance with this acceptance, buyer's agent issued a new order 

 to seller for two additional cars, one of which was shipped on October 4, 

 the other on November 2, 1920. 



On November C seller shipped the third car on the original purchase. 

 Buyer promptly returned seller's invoice for same, claiming he had never 

 authorized the shipment. The car was then put in storage at destination 

 for account of seller. 



The Dispute : Buyer contended. First, that he had never authorized 

 bis agent, who had been in charge of his southern buying office, to. pur- 

 chase the car in dispute, but only the other four cars shipped. 



Second, that on and after July 1, 1920, the aforesaid agent was no 

 longer in the regular employ of buyer and therefore not authorized to make 

 any purchases without specific a'uthority therefor. 



Third, that seller, through failure to ship the third car promptly or 

 before executing the second order, thereby Indicated to buyer that It was 

 not his purpose to ship other than the two additional cars authorized. 



Seller contended. First, that buyer's agent gave him specific written 

 authority on buyer's stationery to ship the additional car in dispute. 



Second, that he was not advised of any change in status of buyer's agent 

 with his principal, nor given any reason to doubt agent's authority to make 

 purchases as formerly. 



Third, that all cars applied on same order and amendments thereto ; 

 that no definite time of shipment was specified and that it was immaterial 

 that he merely failed to invoice the first car shipped after September 4 on 

 the original order instead of on the subsequent addition thereto. 



The Decision" : Held. First, that the agent's letter of September 4 to 

 seller and seller's acceptance of September 7 constituted purchase and sale 

 of the third car to be applied against the original order. 



Second, That the act of the agent in the above was the act of the prin- 

 cipal. Therefore, it is 



Held that buyer should pay seller's invoice in full as rendered, amount- 

 ing to $693. G3, together with interest thereon at legal rate from January 

 G. 1921. 



Pertinent Information 



Industries Make Heavy Demands on Hickory Timber Supply 



Hickory timber, although hold in seemingly vast amount by the forests 

 of the country, may soon become insufficient to meet American manu- 

 facturing and woodworking needs. The increasing demand for this 

 valuable species, together with the scattered character of its growth in 

 the forest, has resulted in merchantable stands becoming more and more 

 inaccessible and difficult to log. 



The Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, puts 

 the country's present supply of hickory, distributed through 200,000,000 

 acres of forests, at 15,784,000,000 board feet. Of this the central states 

 have 6.791,000,000 feet, the lower Mississippi states 5,171,000,000 feet. 

 South Atlantic and East Gulf states 3,183.000,000 feet, the Middle Atlantic 

 states 412,000,000 board feet, the lake states 187,000,000 feet and the 

 New England states 40,000,000 feet. 



One of the uses to which hickory is put is the manufacture of spokes 

 for automobile wheels. There are 320 motor vehicle manufacturers in 

 the United States, and production in 1920 was 2,205,197 cars and 

 trucks, of which, it is estimated, SO per cent had wood wheels. The ten 

 or twelve spokes per wheel of each car place the total number of spokes 

 at more than 65,000,000. The yearly demand upon the hickory reserves 

 by this industry alone is tremendous, as there is much waste in getting 

 the select stock necessary not only for spokes but also the rims of wheels. 



For the most part rehicle and agricultural implement Industries com- 

 pete with the handle industry for hickory and ash. These are located 

 mainly in the middle west, but now derive most of their wood supplies 

 from the south. A large number of far-sighted organizations purchased 

 more or less extensive hardwood tracts some years ago, from which they 

 are now able to draw at least a part of their wood supplies. To secure 

 hickory, which grows scatteringly over large areas, the vehicle and agri 

 cultural implement Industries originally maintained extensive buying, 

 logging and milling organizations in the south. They draw upon every 

 conceivable source — farmers' woodlots, small mills, large saw mills, and 

 even specialized operations designed to secure hickory alone. These con- 

 (Continued on page 30) 



