A DEFECTIVE CAR

Hokitika Guardian, 19 April 1930, Page 3

A DEFECTIVE CAR

CLAIM AGAINST RENTAL FIRM

WELLINGTON, April 15

That a motor-hiring firm must' siip ply a car in a condition satisfactory lor the journey to be undertaken was the decision of M.r E. Page, S.M., in a case involving some points of interest to motorists heard in the Magistrate’s Court toKlay.

C. Burnnrd (Mr Young) sued Wellington Rental Cars, Ltd. (Mr Nicholls) for £lB 10s, being the amount ol hire said in advance, in addition to runiining costs and personal expenses incurred owing to the alleged failure df the car to complete the journey for whicli it had been hired.

It was admitted that the car had been hired for 28 days for a trip to North Auckland, the hire, £22 being paid in advance.

Plaintiff,said that there was a.slight noise, in the back axle when he took the ear over, but it became steadily worse, and the crown wheel and. driving pinion had to be renewed at Taupo, occasioning a three-day delay. Further trouble was experienced between Taupo and Rotorua, the plaintiff decided it would be impossible to carry on. Paring the time the car was on the road he had seventeen punctures and blow-outs, due to the alleged un■satisfactory condition of the tyres.

Defendant counter-claimed for £4 5s fid for damage alleged to have been done to tyres and to a wheel. It was contended that the trouble in the back axle was due to bad driving by the plaintiff,, and that plaintiff had failed to keep the tyres properly inflated, thus causing the punctures. In givine judgment for the plaintiff for £45 with costs, the Magistrate-said he was satisfied also that ,tlie defendants had made no proper inspection of the car before handing it over to the plaintiff, and that the condition of the back axle was substantially as stated by. the plaintiff. Mr Barnard. had been prevented from making a business trio, and had been put to certain exnemo and inconvenience. Thei counter claim must fail.