SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 211, 31 May 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

SALE OF A MOTOR LORRY ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION The hearing of the/civil action of iliignu3. Sanderson and Co., Ltd., aguinst ii. K U'Unteo, W. 11. M. M'Entec, and P. L.. Guillard, contractors, of Auckland, to recover 41500 on the sale of a Thurnejcrotl: motor-wagon, was continued in ttie Supreme Court yesterday. ilis Honour the Chief Justice (Sir KoDert Stout) was on the.Bench. Air. T. Xcave appeared for the plaintiffs, and Air. A. ">y. Blair for the defendants. Jlr. A. li. Dimoclc was foreman of the jury. The defendants admitted the contract to purchase-, but repudiated the contract on the ground of alleged misrepresentation. This being an affirmaturv defence, the case was opened by Mr. Blair. Several witnesses were called by Mr. Blair, whoso case concluded at 11 o'clock yesterday morning. Mr. Ncave, for .Magnus, Sanderson ar.d Co., in his opening address, remarked to the jmy that they would lia\o r\ good knowledge of the' dispute between the parties after hearing the evidence already given. The salient featares His Honour: I want to know the legal aspect of the matter. Mi , . Neave: 1 was reserving that point, but the legal position , was clients claimed 'that this was a specific saio of an article; thai upon the signing of the contract all the requirements of law were completed, in order to effect the passing of tile property. He claimed there was a eale, end the other side admitted that. The property having passed to the purchaser, the sole reined}, available to the purchaser; vas an action for damages tor a breach of warranty if he could osiiiblish v. breach.

His Honour:' What issues <lo you propose to put before the jury? Mr. Is'eavo: 'J'iio iir.st issue would be whether the property had passed to the purchaser. . Mr. Blair: The property had not pa 63ed to the purchaser, for theio was still' certain work to be done to Lite wniron. After some further iliscustion counsel agreed to prepare tho issued to bo submitted to the iury. ' Mr. Neave, his atlriicss to the jury, said 'the salient features of the transaction were that Magnus, Sanderson and Co., Ltd., carried on business as .dealers .in. motor-pars,.,and a branch of the business consisted of dealing in sec-ond-hand cars, many of which were taken as parti payment, lor new cars. They had extensive repair works-whore they repaix.d second-hand cars and put them'into as .good condition as possible. The transaction in dispute was the sale of a second-hand motor-wagon. The bargain was 6hown in tho written- contract. Whatever representations lv.ight have been made in tht correspondence or otherwise in the Jast resort tiny n.ust rely on the bargain ihat was. plated in writing, and that bargain \ias for the purchase.of a motor-wagon at <£550 cash, f.o.b. But' there was something additional in this contract, it was to Dβ confirmed..by .telegram, and the wagon, when 'purchased,- would be- at the buyer's risk , . The'evidence that be wrald submit to the jury would \:o very simple. It would be the evidence (.f the sales manager (Mr. Lawrenoe) of the secondhand department.- for the whole matter depended upon what Lawrence, said to M!Entcc, what occurred Mtween these two. Counsel then called several witnesses. The. case had'not concluded when tho Court rose; the further hearing wilMiegin at 9.30 a.m. to-day. - .