Damages Of £40 Allowed By Magistrate

Chronicle (Levin), 21 April 1948, Page 7

Damages Of £40 Allowed By Magistrate

Claiming that he ha'd been the victim of- false representation over the sale of a motorTcar, Jack Edward Eaves, insurahce agent of Levin, claimed £100 damages from Charies. Bruce Greenaway in the Magistrale's Court, Levin, on Friday, bef ore Mr. A. • M. Goulding-, S.M. Mr. R. Hardie Boys, Wellington, appeared for claimant and Mr. J. P. Bertram for aefendant. Evidence of how he had purchased a 1940 Austin car from Greenaway for £440 was given by claimant, who said that, in making enquiries for a car from defendant, he had stipuiated that it must not. be an expense, particularly in tne first year, as he was just .establishing his business in the distrlct and could not alford to have the vehicle continuaily in a garage. Defendant had told him that he had used the car himself, and had run it"600 miles on a pint of oil. He had again asked about the oil on a later occasion and the answer had been repeated. He had also said that it shouid go 10,000 miles before its engine would require a rebore. The miieage registered on the speedorneter when he purchased the car was 31,567 miles. There had been a dent above the cloor on the left side of the roof, which defendant said he had been given to understand had resulted from the car at one time backine into the branch of a tree. He ' had then asked about the tyres, and had been told liiao they had been recapped but would stand another. He nad reiied upon the statements made by dei'enaant and purchased the vehicle. For his own information, he had made out an oil consumption chart, continued claimant. Shortly after using the vehicie he noticed its consumption in oil was heavy. His reckomngs on the chart were made as liberaliy as possible, but after a time the car wao censuming l a pint of oil to every 93 miles.. He I produccd the chart rererred to. 1 About a week after the car's pur- \ chase he had toid Greenaway that i it was using a "terrific" amount of oil. | Defendant had replied that ! the ' valves had recentiy been j ground and that would account for j the heavy oil consumption, and had I suggested that he try it for | another moniii. He had done this I with no improvement. He also | found that the vehicle was badly j in need of a rebore, and had had I this done. Defendant had offered ! to pay the labour costs of the rei bore, provided that the work was J carried our at a garage of his selection. In regard to the tyres, he had had them inspeeted' by a retread1 ing firm whicli said it would n,pt I touch them, stated 'claimant. T|ie [car. had sufTered. a/iiiajor smagh j sincq the p:oce?dlngs were laun^hi ed, but he considereed'that prior''. to j this* if he had got £350 for the kar i he would have considered lfims|if | very lucky. i ' \ Mr. Bertram: Did you have tlfe car valued? — -Yes. Mr. Hudson, pf Hudson and Burnham Ltd.,> valued it. Mr. Brrtroin: Did he not offer you £400 with the knowledge that it ! needed a rebore? — No, nothing like i that. I have an idea.he said £325, but am not sure.

Mr. Bertram: Later when you referred to his saying that he had used the car for 600 miles, did he not correCt you and say it was 300 miles? — It got less'and less every time I saw him. In the end it seemed he had just run it around the town a little. In reply to other questions from Mr. Bertram claimant stated that the cost of the major work on the car had been £60 for a rebore and other work to the motor and £20 for tyres. Called by Mr. Todd, Glendinnlng Walter Maurice Riddell, an inspector for the- insurance cofhpany which employed claimant, ' stated that he had been present when the approach to Greenaway was first made. The firm was an interested party, as it was initially financing the purchase of the car. He had heard defendant say that he had run the vehicle 600 miles and had used only a ' pint of oil. He had gone for a ride in the car, which seemed to be all right. Cross-examined by Mr. Bertram, witness said that it- would not have influenced him if the defendant had said the car had used two pints of oil, as he was not a driver. Called by counsel for claimant, Philip Alfred Peterson, garage proprietor, of Levin, described how he had once repaired the car for its previous owner, a Mrs. Stewart, after it had been invoved in a smash with a pole. In reply to questions from Mr. Bertram, witness told the court .that no serious depreciation ha'd resulted from the repairs, which were confined to the h->clyWork. After a valve griird a vehicle Would use a considerable amount of oil. He would agree that fast driving would also influence the amount of oil used. In answer to a question by Mr. Tod'd, Peterson stated that even after a regrind a pint of oil per 100 miles was excessive, and in a medium sized car indicated that a rebore was necessary. For the defence, Mr. Bertram said that his client had refused to give any guarantee whatsoever in regard to the car, and anything he might have said was merely an expression of opinion. He hqd previously been the principal shareholder in the firm 01 Tantrum and Greenaway, which dealt mainly with car repairs, said defendant in evidence. He was what was known as a csrtifted mechanic. The, firm did. not norihally deal in used cars, but had received this one as a trade in on a new vehicle. He had driven the car himself and it had rfot indicated an excessive use of oil. He had driven it approximately 300 miles. The car had been signed over to him after the business had ceased to f.unction, and the negotiation for its sale* had been completed after the business had closed down. He had no knowledge of a prior aceident to the car, but had been told the reason for the dent. above the door 011 the left side,; and this information he ha.d pkssed ' on: Hxi Eaves., In regafdj to Ithp* tyres, had niprely saidhthdt they ''lejokbd as if they wduld;' retr.e^d ag'ain/' The. rawtor was ' runiiing v^cy smoothiy and he could. see no need for a rebore. When the matter was brought to his attention by Eaves, he had suggested paying the labour .costs which, on mrormatlon he had* secured at a local garage, would amount to £8. Eaves, however, wanted the job done elsewhere. Cross-examined by Mr. Todd, defendant said he had told claimant that the valves had been gfound, but that he did not mention the pbssibility of the increase in oil consumption because he had . not visualised that it would be great. He had not had a chance to cry the car out after. the valve grinding\ Caked by Mr. Bertram, Keith Joseph Burling, an A ■ grade mechanic previously employed by defendant, detailed the work he had done on the vehicle. before its sale. From his inspection of 'the engine, he would not at that time have recommended a rebore, said witness. In reply to a question from counsel, he said that he had bought and sold cars at one time and would value the car at £450. After a valve grind oil consumption would be heavy up to 1000 miles, but aftei that it shouid taper off. A lol depended also -on the treaiment the car received from its driver In his summing up, Mr. Goulding said he would accept Greenaway's story about the tyres. Short of submitting them to a retreading firm for testing, a dealer could not be certain about the life of tyres. The distance travelled hv Greenaway in the car prior to its sale was not important. Whether it was 600 miles or 300 miles, he shouid have had, in his opinion, sufficient experience with the vehicle to know quite a bit about it. "When people go to an established car firm they arp entitled to rely on statements 'made by its representatives," continued Mr. Goulding, "and I am satisfied that the statements made regarding ?the rebore and oil amounted to the views of an expert in cars, Representation was made that the car was not using excessive oil, but the list shows conclusively that it used an exceptional amount of oil, even considering the regrinding. From February to July of last year it was using a pint to a little less than 100 miles. . In my opinion that is excessive, and I am unable to credit it to the mere regrinding. I am sure claimant made express inquiries about the possibility of a rebore being necessary. Claimant asks for £100, but the rebore gave him a much. improved ardcle a 0 he cannot claiin 11 a,il baoK. '1 think £40 compensation is autquato.;"