CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10604, 1 June 1920, Page 3

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

A LORRY TRANSACTION JIUIY'S VEHDICT: CASE AD,TOUI?NBD FOR ARGUMENT. The heaa'iug of the case commenced at the Supreme Court on Friday last in which Thomas Edward Broughton, of Petone, carrier (Mr J. C. Peacock) claimed from Neil D.oneghuc and Co., Ltd.. of Wellington, motor body coachbuilders, etc. (Mr Arthur Fair) £2OO damages for alleged ■ breach of contract, was continued before Hit, Honour Sir John Salmond yesteiMay. Tho plaintiffs sought to recover £3OO paid for a motor-lorry, less £IOO alleged, to be the actual marketable value of the vehicle: £SO expended in endeavouring to make good defects in the engine; £SO for loss of time owing to the said deficiencies in the engine, and such other relief aa the o-oun deemed fit. There was a counterclaim for possession of the lorry, £SO damages, £7 7s Od for repairs, costs of tho case, etc. _ > Lengthy and detailed evidence was heard, the effect of which was that tho damages caused were tho result of unskilful driving. In addressing the jury, His Honour presented the following issues for their consideration :—(1) Did tho plaintiff make.known to the defendant tho purposo for which he required tho lorry? (2) Did the plaintiff rely upon the defendant's skill and judgment to provide a lorry reasonably fit for that purpose? (3) Was the lorry reasonably fit for that purpose? (4) Was the lorry of merchantable quality ? (5) If merchantable, were the defects such as ought to have been discovered by tho plaintnt when he examined the lorry before making the contract? (6) Was. tho lorry injured by negligent driving or treatment on the part of tho plaintiff or his servants?. (7) If the lorry was not reasonably fit or was not merchantable, what damage is tho plaintiff entitled to? (a) in respect of the quality of the lorry; (b) in respect to the plaintiff's loss of profit. After a retirement of about twenty minutes, the jury returned answers in the negative to all but issues 1 and 2, and assessed the damatre to the lorry at £3OO and the plaintiff's loss of profit at £oo. The case was further adjourne-l sine die, when certain questions of law arising out of the claims will be argued.