MOTOR REPAIRS DISPUTE

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 515, 19 March 1920, Page 2

MOTOR REPAIRS DISPUTE

GARAGE PROPRIETOR V. CAR OWNER. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT ON CLAIM AND COUNTER. A case that attracted considerable interest as far as motoit-ear owners are concerned was determined at the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr? F. K. Hunt, S.M., when Messrs Karews and Ryan, motor engineers, proceeded to recover from Messrs. H. Dell and Son £2O 12s lid for work done to and material supplied for the defendant's motor-car. The defendants paid into Court £l6 16s Bd, but disputed an amount of £3 IGs 3d, alleged to have been an overcharge for a job that was arranged to cost not more than £lO. Defendants counter-claimed £l4 7s on the grounds of alleged negligence and want of skill. The statement of counter-claim stated that defendants were the owners of a motor-car, which they entrusted to plaintiffs to repair, reiving upon their skill. In such car 'was a self-starter fitted with two six-volt batteries. Plaintiffs advised that these batteries-re-quired repairing, and the defendlWs consented to leave it with plwrittffs as experts to do what was requisite,.,: The plaintiffs had erne of these bat-1 teries repaired and refitted one only in the car, and charged £6 7s for repairing the same. The work was useless, and when the car was retunned the self-starting gear still did not work. In the month of August, 1919, defendants discovered that one six-volt battery was useless to work the self-starting gear, and that 12 volts were necessary, and the plaintiffs advised them to purchase a 12-volt battery, which they did, and which was quite effective. The defendants relied on the expert knowledge professed by plaintiffs, who described themselves as motor trouble experts, and generally represent themselves as competent repairers and adjusters of motor-cars, and they have suffered £9 7s damages through plaintiffs negligence or want of skill in repairing and fitting the said six-volt battery alone in the car, particulars of damage or loss a|re as under: Amount paid plaintiffs for repairing the said batterv, £6 7s; loss of use of car, and loss of use of self-starter, £3. Total, £9 7s. The defendants also claimed from plaintiffs £5, the value of the two six-volt batterfes which plaintiffs retained after the 12-volt battery had been installed. The total counter-claim was £l4 7s.

Mr. C. 0. Mahoney appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. J. G. Haddow for defendants. Henry Dell, saddler, Pukekohe, said during December, 1919, he had some work done to his Mclntyre mo-tor-car by Messrs. Karews and Ryan. Before anything was done he asked for a quotation as to what the cost would be. Plaintiffs took the car over to the garage, and took the two batteries out. Mr. Karews said it would be necessary to send both batteries to Auckland to have them thoroughly overhauled. He had had the car about four years, and she

had gone about 5000 miles. Later Karews told him it would take £6 to put one battery in thorough good order, and that the one battery would do. The battery was returned and installed, but it would not work correctly. This was in July, and his son returned on August 8. In the meantime he ran the engine once, but had to crank it to start it. The battery then was only of six volts instead of

12 volts. Karews later inspected the engine and put a 12-volts battery in, which worked successfully, stating that he had made a mistake by putting in a six-volt battery. Witness said he had paid £ls 8s 6d for the 12-volt battery. Things went all right afterwards. Shortly afterwards Karews said the timing wanted attention. They got a new timing wheel, and after ,it was installed the timing was still wrong. The car went back to the garage for repairs to timing again, and witness asked Karews what it would actually cost. Karews replied that it would not cost moife than £lO. The car was there for some time, and witness requested several times to have the use of the car. He lost the use of the car during Christmas. No one else had woiked on the car. In connection with the counterclaim, witness said that Karews and Ryan had a couple of six-volt batteries, for which he claimed £5. He

claimed £3 for loss of the use of the can, but the amount should have been more.

To Mr. Mahoney: The ca»l was quite satisfactorily until the selfstartor went wrong. The batteries were under the seat alongside one another. The batteries gave no trouble until about a month before he handed the car over to Karews. Prior to this the car had been oveithauled by another Pukekohe firm; probably 12 months before. The fl.'ouble then was that she had to be cleaned, the engine taken down, etc. He took the car because he thought it was not going right. The other garage people handed the car back in thorough order. With regard to the batteries, he had no technical knowledge. In connexion with the first battery, Karews said if £6 was spent on it, it would be wwlth £7 oji £B, but as the other was much worn, it could be repaired for £4 10s, but this was unnecessary as the one would do the work. Karews said he would take it and allow witness what he sold it foir. Witness denied that Karews ever offered to accompany him, free of cost, to get other opinions about the car. He also denied that Karews said he would charge for three days at £2 per day, nor did he say in addition to the parts that had to be put in. They made a crude job of it. This particular job was pinned down at £lO During the three years while his son was away, it was used about once a week. When he got the final account he led them to understand there would be a counter-claim. Mr. Dell added that he knew nothing about motor-cars, but left the matter entirely in the hands of and Ryan, who he thought were experts. Henry Herbert Dell, son of defendant, saddler, said the car was about live years old, and had travelled between 5000 and 6000 miles. He returned from the front on August 8. He had a look at the car, and found the sedf-sfarter out of order. He had to crank up to start the engine, alter priming it. He examined the car. He noticed a six-volt battery in, but upon being told by Karews that he had an old 12-volt batteity, he requested it be installed. She had kicked off all right ever since. Later he found the timing gear was out of order. They took the car to the garage, and in conversation Karews said it would cost about £lO at the outside. From that he took it for granted the car would be repaired and returned in good order at a cost of £lO. Since he had returned he had very little use of the car. She was laid up during Christmas. They used the car f<|r going to the farm, and the land agency business. During the time the auto was Ittid up they had to use the horses and buggy. They were at a considerable inconvenience through not having the use of the car. To Mr. Mahoney: He nevetf remembered seeing the car started with the self-starter while the six-volt battery was therein. During a trip to the farm on one occasion after the car was overhauled he noticed

that the timing was not correct.. She was not a bad little M, bus" when they got her and right up to the time he went to the front. The car was always used on a Sunday to go to Waiau Pa. He had never heard of anyone touching the dynamo. He did not know whether thejiynamo had been rewound. He.,sa_#RW c%rj about two weeks after itnrad landed in Auckland, and it was/fitted with, two six-volt ba|£eriel7He was told he would have more-pMWr and more light. The car never turned over on one battery.

The Plaintiffs' Evidence. Michael Walter Karews, motor mechanic, said he asked Mr. Dell why the two Six-volt batteries were there, and received a reply, that the extra battery was installed for more storage. He told Mr. Dell that according to the wiring it was a six-volt system. There was no need for the extra battery- A six-volt battery fully charged a 12-voft svstem i The armatplfchad been rewound twice prior to hin\ getting it, but to what voltage *e did not know. Regarding contract, he claimed there - was n» contract male. Witness saio he did p%l know wt&t it-would cost.- Mipd not know how long it would taSefj convert an engine. He tofd-'IH He did not know^whjj^B^^J £6 phis the cost of the On MrV Dell'sxJunr.r advte«jg| stelleaV* l?-volT H-Lery.'MMF ture Ij«d been completejgl^Mpej To Mr. Haddow: *jl firs tßrTO battery wa#* put in as anßnje*] ment. «« ous garages in New ZeaJageit wei lington, Cambridge and <»Jpfe*partj and in all had about eight J«r| perience. He had neve* been n tked to the tVade. His eluded Jookihg. into -battel the -Jlipta'ty °" batteries .» do thwvvwk, rewinding, etc. H edmittS That he told Mr. Delljh* the car would have to bewdrkeeji gularly if the sSx-vo!JT«*ery «* , In HunVhesai he specialSSPSr electrical «(«Vo s motor-cars. n */• '-'■ William George ißyan, patiaer < previous witness,'said that defenc ants asked them what they woul charge for the job in question. Ki rews replied that the labour wod be £6 plus the parts. If the part could be made it would cost thei about £lO. If they could notjt o» cost moire ar less. It may cost«bou £7 He did not know. He knew the were doing the job at a loss. Whe the car was first taken ,to the gai age there w«s absolutely no jesia ance, everything being run down, t corroborated his partner's evidene and said a contract was not made. To Mr. Haddow: Witness said fc , rews told Dell that the battel ; wanted to be boosted up penwlie*, i lv or else he would have to erg I it up. He was still of Ppmion tta [ the six-volt battery-would gttsfi car. They wejre witting to give afl ! monstratK Theydidthejobafr ! Gordon MiddleinisiJij ; was employed by Messrs. Heywort and Wild, who specialises in^electru al work, said as ipgards the batter 1 a six-volt battery would turn a o volt system, and so on, but a *b . volt battery would not turn » I , volt system. A . would ruin more quickly thanj". 1 was used properly «n* SgSH , Starting systems wwldlMjp'-W live with six-volt batterfei, » [ was the only case he had heard< ' where two batteriesJf J Stalled of one 1 The Magistrate, in sumnyjg U , said he heard the *» *Jg » parties, and was inclined_to> behffl ', ffi sto lV of the defendant. £ < miMtion that confronted nun wi for m for work «"ne betw«m» > cember 15 and January 23. PfOUHH I eSence he was bound .£** *» > a contract was made *<*£?>' £ - ,ave judgment for P la Wf,/°'J2 , amount paid into t for defendant. _ , ..{*««£ i On the counter-claim, »sawgj" . defendant was a man ™»**™ . in« to the accounts-before UNVw« f had always paid cash onUMMB» . He had paid about &*%£*£ pairs to the car, and had nevercOT - plained about I evidence before him newMsg" • that plaintiffs knew notnin|gww . the dr at all. The last «g • Middlemiss, knew more s tiffs. He was satisfied «K ; volt battery would not |M| ; volt system. When the I*]"*,** . ery was installed the ***£& -, W ell. He must enter i defendants, Messrs. JJ*»jls , for £ll 7s, made up "^Jg^jK • 7s for the tery: £2 for the two *f teneaj* bv the plaintiffs; and £3 fortoSS« ; the use of the car, and *^* p i St g£ were awarded th*>taj , ants, Dell and Son, on the countei < claim.