HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1852, 11 September 1913, Page 8

HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

SOME OF ITS FEATURES IN COURT. (By Telegraph.—Prces Association.) Auckland, September 10. Compulsory registration of agreements in connection with the hire purchase system in trading was involved in a reserved decision on a legal point' delivered ,by Mr.. Justice Cooper at the' Supremo Court this afternoon. The caso was ono in which Booth M'Donald and Co. proceeded against tho Oiiicial Assignoo as administrator of the bankrupt estate of F. J. llallmond, farmer, for possession of a number of agricultural implements, or lor their value.

Tho circumstances of the case wero that, when Hallmond was adjudicated bankrupt, the implements in question were in his possession, aud were seized by tho Official Assignee on behalf of creditors. It was claimed by the plaintiff company that, as bankrupt had held the implements 011 bailment or hire purchase agreement the property in them was retained by the company, 'because the chattels'had not, been fullypaid for. A point of law was raised that, as the bailment or agreement was not registered all tho property in the chattels in question passed to tho Oiiicial Assignee. While admitting that the document was not registered, and therefore void as an instrument under the Chattels Transfer Act, the plaintiff company claimed that tho chattels did not pass to the Oiiicial Assignee, because irrespective of tho agreement the property in the chattels always remained in the company.

His Honour, in the course of judgment, held that the instruments in tho case wero not strictly speaking bailments, but merely an admission by bankrupt that ho had hired the chattels from the company. The chattels were undoubtedly bailed to tho bankrupt, but the bailment was the delivery of them by the company. . Tho legal point involved he answered as follows: —"If tho plaintiff company can prove the existence of usage over custom of hire purchase. affecting the agricultural implements (which would exclude tho doctrine or reputed ownership under .Section ill of the Bankruptcy Act, 1903) the fact that the instruments referred to have not been registered will not prevent , it establishing an alleged cause of action." Decision,'-,therefore, went in favour of the company, and £1.0 10s. as costs was allowed. His Honour said the caso would have to go on if the Official Assignee had authority from the creditors to proceed further, and adjourned the action till next session.