03 June 2015

Export: Nelson Honey v. William Jacks

Honey valued at $206,000 has been seized in Shanghai allegedly unlawfully with the connivance of local public officials;  a Singapore trading house has sued the New Zealand exporter in the Singapore courts claiming the product was faulty; while the Nelson honey exporter is suing in the New Zealand courts for non-payment.
The High Court was told Nelson Honey & Marketing Ltd started dealing with Singapore-based William Jacks Ltd in 2010.  A total of 22 export sales were made to William Jacks before Nelson Honey was left unpaid on a $206,000 consignment delivered in October 2013.  William Jacks had moved the consignment from New Zealand to Shanghai in two deliveries: an advance consignment by air and the balance by sea.  It later complained the product was faulty, alleging jars were incorrectly labelled and the honey was discoloured with froth on the surface.
After Nelson Honey sued for payment, William Jacks started legal action in the Singapore courts alleging it had a written distribution agreement specifying that all disputes were to be decided in Singapore.
In the New Zealand court, evidence was given that the honey, stored in a Shanghai warehouse, had been forcibly removed by persons obliquely referred to as “Wang Ming and his entourage” with support from local public security bureau officers.  William Jacks said it was taking action in the Chinese courts to recover the honey.
In New Zealand, Associate Judge Mathews ruled the proper venue to hear the dispute between Nelson Honey and William Jacks was the New Zealand courts.  The written agreement specifying Singapore as the venue for hearing disputes was an unsigned draft.  It had never been finalised.  The default rule in the United Nations Convention governing International Sale of Goods states that the law to apply is that of the country where the contract was entered into.  Judge Mathews ruled the contract in dispute was made in New Zealand when Nelson Honey received William Jacks’ purchase order specifying volume, price and delivery dates.  Prior to this there had been some negotiations over splitting delivery with shipment by both air and sea.
Nelson Honey v. William Jacks – High Court (3.06.15)

15.059