SALE OF MOTOR-LORRY

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 125, 29 May 1919, Page 8

SALE OF MOTOR-LORRY

PURCHASER REFUSES DELIVERY

FALSE REPRESENTATIONS AL- , LEGED.

The hearing of defended actions at the ciTrrent civil sittings of the Supreme Court was commenced this morning by his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). The case taken was that of Magnus Sanderson and Co., Ltd., of Wellington, v. H. E. M'Entee/w. H. M'Entec,/and P. L. Guillard, contractors, of Auckland. Mr. T. Neave appeared for the plaintiff company, and the defendants were represented by Mr. A. W. Blair. Mr. A. E. Dimock was foreman of the jury of twelve.

It was claimed on behalf of the plaintiffs that on or about 16th January, 1919, the, defendant, 11. E. M'Entee, on behalf of all the defendants, ordered from the plaintiff firm a Thorneycroft motor-lorry for £550, and gave a signed order for it, the order to be confirmed by telegram. Then on 18th January the confirmatory telegram was received by the plaintiffs, the telegram adding "include brake, lamps, and horn, cheque following." Subsequently defendants refused to accept delivery of the lorry, and the plaintiff therefore claimed the sum of £550, together with the sum of £40, the price of the brake, lamps, and horn fitted to the lorry at the request of the defendants.

For the defence" the ordering of the wagon was admitted, but, it was contended, on the following understanding : (a) that the lorry was 40 to 45 horse power; (b) that it had only been on the road for seven years; (c) that it was in good working -order, and would carry five or six tons without difficulty; (d) that the lorry had not been abused, and was in first-class order; (c) that the lorry had eight-inch tyres. Each of these representations, the defence alleged, was untrue. It was further claimed on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff's servants knew the nature of the work for which the loi-ry was required, and represented that it was suit-able for such work. The confirmatory telegram was sent in reliance of the representations made. In'regard to the plaintiff's claim for £40 for brake, lamps, and horn, defondants claimed that the price quoted for, fitting tho brake was £9, and the lamps £6, and on this quotation the work was- ordered.

Pefendants also counter-claimed for' the sum of £100, of which£2-5 was the deposit paid on the lorry, and £75 was claimed for cost and expense incurred by the defendants in two fruitless visits to Wellington. Tho defence being an affirmative defence, Mr. Blair opened, and outlined the evidence he proposed to call.to show that the lorry was ,by no means what it had been represented to be.

(Proceeding.)