DEALER'S CLAIM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 224, 11 October 1940, Page 5

DEALER'S CLAIM

QUESTION OF MOTOR CYCLE PURCHASE . THIRD PARTY UNDER AGE Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., was - on the Bench to -hear a for £10 brought by Charles RicK ard Whittle (Mr Barry), cycle dealer, against Thomas G. Roberts (Mr Otley),, the sum beiing the -balance of an account for the purchase of a motor cycles. Several questions were involv- > ed, including the second sale of the cycle to a minor. Judgment was given for plaintiff. v Charles Richard Whittle, cycle gent, said he had sold the motor . cycle to Roberts. Some time later Roberts brought a young man; Caulfield, into the shop and it was agreed that the cycle should be transferred to Caulfield but that Roberts should still be responsible for the 'pay-* ments as Caulfield was still under age. The arrears were brought up to date by a payment of £9 but plaintiff had not received any more. ■ He had written to and telephoned . to Roberts on numerous occasions. Finally Roberts, had authorised plaintiff to repossess the machine. The motor cycle was in a bad state • . • when repossessed and it. had "c|»st£47 to put in order. Answering Mr Otley, plaintiff. said lie was positive that there had not been a fresli agreement between himself and Caulfield. Further, he had told Roberts that he reserv-* ed his right of claim. Plaintiff "admitted that the authorisation of re-. possession was verbal and there" was no written order of surrender. Defendant's Case. Thomas G. Roberts said he purchased the motor cycle from Whittle. When he took Caulfield into plaintiff's shop, Whittle had said that he did not know Caulfield, but nothing was said of Caulfield being under age for the purposes of a ' Hire Purchase Agreement. The first defendant knew of that matter was when plaintiff told him over the .! telephone. Defendant had not au« thorised the re-possession.' He knew nothing of the Hire Purchase Act, 1939, and plaintiff had not infornie'd him. of his rights under the Acl.

Cross-examined, defendant said he! had no doubt that he was not liable. * There had been some correspond- - . ence, with letters from plaintiff andhis solicitor, and then the summons. - He had then paid 5s on account, signifying his intention' of paying' - the balance monthly. John Caulfield said he was IS years of age. He had taken over-. . the motor cycle from Roberts and when the deal had been arranged - - there had not been any! discussion ... about age. The magistrate gave judgment for - the plaintiff for £8, costs amounting to £2 Bs.