7 Dec 2015
Because the 2nd defendant admitted possession of the specific jewellery and failed to comply with contractual obligations and prior court orders, the court was entitled to enter final judgment ordering delivery within seven days or, failing delivery, an assessment of value and payment, together with costs.
8 Jan 2003
No oral sale-or-return term was proved and the Agreement's 'deleted' phrase is more naturally read as referring to deletion from manufacture/licensing or similar defects rather than an unrestricted right to return unsold shelf stock; alternatively, even if sale-or-return applied, the buyer retained goods beyond a reasonable time (90 days) so property passed and plaintiff is entitled to the contract price. Miracle Bust promotion was a separate short-term sale-or-return arrangement but defendant's records do not show credited returns sufficient to defeat plaintiff's claim.
17 May 1999
The application to vary the prior order and to pay out the proceeds is refused because the earlier order was an interlocutory, pragmatic solution that did not determine the parties' rights; the funds may be affected by the defendant's counterclaims and potential set-off, and a post‑hoc change in pleaded position by the defendant does not warrant immediate payment out.
23 Oct 1990
The contemporaneous invoice stating "Terms 45 days" was inconsistent with a consignment arrangement; the trial judge erred in overlooking this documentary evidence and in failing to give it proper weight, warranting appellate interference; appeal allowed, judgment below set aside and judgment entered for the Plaintiff for the sum claimed.
27 Apr 1987
The court found no sale to the defendant: the duplicate Confirmation of Sale bearing the words "On Consignment," the parties' conduct and communications, and the role of DCL as consignee/agent established a consignment/agency relationship rather than a sale; accordingly defendant was not liable to pay US$15,423.80 and judgment was entered for the defendant.