RADIO TRANSACTION

Evening Star, Issue 21745, 13 June 1934, Page 2

RADIO TRANSACTION

DISPUTE OVER SALE JUDGMENT FOR VENDOR Judgment for plaintiff was given in the Magistrate’s Court .yesterday niternoon in the case in which M'Cracken and Walls proceeded against George Duncan Wilson and Dora Wilson in a claim for £25 allegedly due in connection with the sale of an Atwater Kent radio. Mr F. M. Hanan appeared for the plaintiff firm and Mr C. S. Wilson for the defendants. Robert Walls, of the firm of M'Cracken and Walls, detailed the negotiations following an inquiry by Mrs Wilson as a prospective purchaser. A demonstration set was installed and an aerial was erected by his firm for the sum of £2 12s Gd. The first set was an Atwater Kent, costing £lB 10s, and another Atwater Kent was sent on January 24 and was returned. A third model was sent and returned, and later there was a fourth set, which was the subject of the dispute. This set was installed late in January or early in February. On February 21 witness instructed his salesman to complete the sale or to return the set. A few days after the sales docket was signed Mr Wilson, called at the shop, the conversation centring round power and noises and what could be done to eliminate them. Mr Wilson mentioned that he had purchased another set, but did not say that he repudiated the sale of the set. Witness told the defendant that the noise was local interference, and he arranged to visit defendant’s house in company with experts to satisfy himself that there was no defect in the sot. Witness asked Mr Wilson if'he would prefer a cheaper set, and Mr Wilson replied that that set would do him, as he wanted the best. Witness told Mr AVilson that he had taken delivery of the set and had signed the docket, and that he intended holding him to the sale. Witness outlined subsequent visits to the defendant’s home. Later the defendant called on him and told him that he had the set at his son’s place the previous night and that they got perfect reception. He was satisfied that the interruptions were due to outside interference near his home. The same day he had a visit from Mrs Wilson, who advised him that her husband was bringing the set back. AVitness expressed Ibis surprise, saying that Mr Wilson had not long left him and that he had expressed pleasure with the set, which was going well. He also said that Mr AVilson had arranged for him to cany out alterations to the aerial. In the meantime Mr Wilson drew up in a car with the set. AA’itness refused to take delivery, saying that ho considered it was a bona fide sale. At Mr AVilson’s request he permitted the set to remain in the shop, where it was labelled. Evidence was given by the two salesmen concerned. John Perdval Picket'd!, radio technician, employed by Messrs M'Cracken and Walls, gave evidence of the installation of the set in defendant’s house. In making the tests he had discovered a certain amount of noisej but it was nob what he would call excessive. It was A.C. (alternating current) interference, coming from outside sources. He identified it as w kind of hoi.se picked up by a radio under certain street lighting conditions. There wore other noises, heard on every receiver. The set itself was working perfectly normally, ■Witness had piit a Philco set on also, and found exactly t]ie same noise. Indeed, the noise would have been heard on any make of wireless. Later the witness visited another house in the locality, close to the AVilson’s, and made some tests. Ho got into touch with the electv'icitv department, and at his request the street lights in the vicinity were switched out for a minute, when tie interference disappeared. AATien the lights went on again the noises were heard once more. , ~ ~ My AVilson said that the case for the defence rested on three grounds. Ihe first was that there was no contract. If it were held that there was a contract, then the only one of the parties that was a contracting party was Mrs AVilson. If that were so, that contract was voidable by the buyer, and the correct remedy, damages, bad not been asked for by the plaintiff, He submitted that the intention of the parties should be to some extent taken into consideration. AVhen AVilson signed the docket he was assured by the salesman that the set would be satisfactory, and that clear reception would be received, AVilson was merely the agent for Mrs AVilson, and had signed the contract us master of the house, but the set was to be purchased by Mrs Wilson. The question of the quality of the set and its fitness for the particular purpose for which it was required would be raised, and it was intended to question the fitness of the set for the purpose. George Duncan AVilson, the defendant, said that his wife was the buyer of the set. Roughly, about fourteen sets had come to bis house in about three weeks’ time. The set in dispute was in bis house for two or three weeks, and the salesman had assured him that it would give him every satisfaction. To Mr Hanan: He was sorry the proceedings had been taken, and was still friendly with Mr Walls. AVhen the docket' was signed the salesman bad said that he would have no trouble with the machine so far as outside noise was concerned. Ho thought the word “ guarantee ” was used. In reply to the magistrate (Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M.), witness admitted that he was not prepared to say definitely that the salesman had made that statement on-the occasion in question. Dorothy Christine Wilson, wife of the previous witness, said that the set was fairly satisfactory for local reception, but 'with outside stations there were noises. She had told her husband not to sign the docket, but he had done so. To Mr Haiian: She could not remember that the word “ guarantee ” was used on this occasion.

Further evidence was given by Henry Cecil Beckingsale, electrical inspector for the City Corporation. The Magistrate, in giving his judgment, said that he had listened closely to the evidence, and had no hesitation in coming to a conclusion. The defence suggested that there was an absolute guarantee that there would be no outside interference, but it was very vague as to whether that assurance was giyen. This was not a hurried or hasty purchase, nor was the article one that (tad been foisted on to the purchaser. Air and Mrs Wilson had had the set in their possession for two or three weeks, and they had had every opportunity of trying it out for themselves. An attempt was made to trace the source of the outside interference, and Mr Pickorill had said, that a leak in the electric lighting system had been definitely traced, “ It is obvious that there must be interference with respect to all sets from time to time,” Air Bartholomew added, '* and on some occasions it must be greater than on others. I am satisfied that this set was no more liable to outside interference than any other of its class, ft has evidently been examined and found to be mechanically in perfect condition. It hardly needs to be demonstrated that interference will be experienced from time to time

through the effects of the weather and other phenomena. An instrument has been sold which has been shown to bo absolutely sound and capable of doing tho work which it was represented it could do.” The Magistrate then dealt with the question of liability. Mr Wilson, to said, was a business man, and he had signed the contract, and no business man could complain if a document signed by him was taken, on its face value. Mr AATlson was responsible, and judgment would be entered against him for the amount claimed, with court costs (£2 10s), solicitor’s fee (£4 3s), and witnesses’ expenses (28s).