SALE OF MOTOR CAR.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4681, 31 March 1924, Page 2

SALE OF MOTOR CAR.

* A dispute over commission. . < PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM UPHELD. At the Magistrate’s Court at Paoroi on Saturday, before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., William Fleming and Son (Mr Eric A. Porritt), engineers, claimed to recover the sum of £34 5s Id from George Francis'Barakat (Mr J. L. Hanna), taxidriver, Paeroa, for goods alleged to have been supplied du-ing March 2 to November 14, 1923. Of the orignial sum alleged to be due defendant had paid £ll 18s 7d into court, in satisfaction of the claim and costs, and denied liability for the sum

of £1 Is 6d for two tins of moto’.’ spirit and a .share of commission W amounting to £22 10s alleged to be due on the sale of a motor-car.

W. Fleming, engineer, Paeroa, sai 1 that towards the end of last year his firm decided to purchase a new car, and defendant had interviewed the plaintiffs regarding same. Finally, it w.:i- decided to purchase a car for £555 tos, less £22 10s which had been off-red as an inducement by defendant to plaintiffs to make the deal. After the deal had been completed defendant stated that he was at that time unable to pay' plaintiffs th*? amount due for commission. -The gross cost of the car in Auckland was £555 10s. and defendant had agreed to allow £22 10s, making the cost of the ear £532 10s net. Defendant had never disputed the accounts rendered by plaintiffs until the action was brought. Defendant had shown keen-' ness to obtain the order fcr the ctfrom plaintiffs. Regarding the sale of two tins of motor spirit,' daily docket books were produced showing the entries made at the time of the sale.

To Mr Hanna witness stated that everything entered in the docket had been supplied. He denied approaching defendant in the first instance with reference to buying the Chandler ear in question. The agreement to purchase the car had been • drawn up by a man named Patrick at defendant’s request and was signed oy witness in the presence of defendant. The. agreement was signed on condition that there was no increase in the price of the car before delivery was made. He denied that he had made anything out of the agreement when the price went up to £585. The agreed price had been paid. The matter of the likelihood of a rise in price and the commission offered by defendant; was the inducement to sign up for the car. To Mr Porritt witness said defendant had stated that he was to receive a large sum as commission from the Pacific Motor Co., Auckland, and that was why he had accompanied plain-' tiff to Auckland. ’ . John Fleming, son of the previous witness, stated that he was positive the benzine had been supplied. Cor- ; roborative evidence was given as to the agreement made for the purchase of »he car and the commission offered by the defendant. To Mr Hanna witness stated that the car was quite satisfactory, but it would not have been purchased had defendant not offered the commission as an inducement. In opening for the defence Mr Hanna contended that there was no case to answer, as the car had no: been sold to the plaintiffs by the defendant, but had been purchased through the Pacific Motor Co. A nonsuit was asked for.

George Francis Barakat, the defendant denied that he had sold the car, contending that it had been bought through his principals in Auckland. He considered that the action brought by' plaintiffs was merely a“franie-up.” Defendant stated that he had not used his influence with the plaintiffs to purchase a car, and had not sougnt their business. He alleged that plaintiffs had approached him with regard to the car, and denied that an agreement had been made in which he offered to share his commission. Mr Porritt cross-examined defendant at some length as to his mover ments on March 49, when the case was originally set down for hearing but had to be adjourned on account of his absence.

In .summing up the Magistrate said that it was not an uncommon practice for an agent to offer a share of commission to induce a sale, and it seemed quite reasonable t> assume that such had been the case hi the present action. It appeared to him highly improbable that the defendant, being an agent for motor-cars, and knowing that the plaintiffs had the ca«h and were keen on buying, did not approach them in the matter. As regards the sale of benzine, he was of the opinion that the plaintiffs had clearly shown that the two tins in dispute had been delivered to defendant? and lie had no reason to doubt their story.

Judgment was given for the full amount claimed, £34 5s Id, with costs £7 4s. On Mr Porritt’s application solicitor’s fee of £1 Is was allowed bn the adjournment.