SALE OF CAR.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20101, 3 December 1930, Page 8

SALE OF CAR.

disputed agreement. SUPREME COURT ACTION. TTU Honour Mr Justice Adams was asked, 1b the Supreme Conrt yesterday ! afternoon, to decide a dispute between a Wellington motor-car dealer and a Christchurch purchaser. The main question turned upon a hire-purchase agreement and alleged alterations in its wording. Th« plaintiff vai Evelyn Macdonald, 70, Pretoria street, Loirer Jlutt, and the defendant was Kobert James, I 6£) Bletsoe avenue, Christchurch, civil servant, and Grace James, his wife. Mr Evan Parry (Wellington) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. J. Sim for the defendants. Tlio Claim. Tli# statement of claim set out tbat on April 2nd, 2925, Grace James entered into a contract in writing, whereby she agreed to purchase an Oakland motor-car from the plaintiff for £4.i5. Tie ear was delivered to the defendants, or one of them, who accepted the car and paid the plaintiff on account £ll9 11a. Plaintiff had always been willing to give credit for the moneys paid. The balance of the purchase money was owing. On occasions payment had been demanded, by the plaintiff but the defendants refused to pay and repudiated liability. The plaintiff claimed £ 394 7s lid as the balance owing, or aa damages for breach of contract.

The Defence. The defence was a general denial •with the exception that the defendants admitted the allegation that they had refused to pay the money allegedly demanded of them by the plaintiff. A further defence was that the addition of certain words by the plaintiff or his agent to the contract was a material alteration which voided or vitiated it; further, that if, subsequent to tho alteration, any contract existed, which the plaintiff was entitled to enforce (and which the defendants denied) then it was a hire-purchase agreement wliercunder the defendants had a right to return the car; that they did return the car, all liability ceasing. Another defence was that if it was proved that plaintiff was entitled to recover, then the contract was entered into between plaintiff and Grace James. Robert James at no time authorised his wife to enter into a contract, on his behalf.

Alleged Alterations.

Evelyn Macdonald, formerly a motordealer, said that he had asked Mrs James to initial the alteration in the document. She said she would rather not until she was advised. It was not correct that the defendants were not able to go for a picnic on Anniversary Day for the reason that they could not get possession of the car. The defendants were at liberty to take the car whenever they desired. Finding that he had not the money defendant telegraphed to witness not to send the car down to Christchurch from Wellington. ■Witness had taken no steps to repossess himself of the car.

Mr Sim moved tor a non-suit on the grounds that the document was altered I without the consent of the defendants. It was null and void, and the plaintiff could not sue upon it, said counsel. Payment Term Suggested. Bobert James said that there was no question that Macdonald controlled the situation. ' Realising that he could not pay the money plaintiff required, witness telegraphed plaintiff not to send tho car down from Wellington. To Mr Parry witness said that in the first place plaintiff refused to allow witness to bring the car to Christchurch for the reason that not enough money had been paid off the purchase price. He told plaintiff that he would send him a cheque when he had sold his house. J

Grace James said that she signed the contract. Plaintiff said he was sorry they could not take the car with so little paid npon it. To Mr Parry, witness said that her impression .was that she was buying a car from a friend, payment to be made as Boon as she was able. Plaintiff suggested a term of two years. After hearing legal argument his Honour non-suited the plaintiff with costs according to scale.