CLAM FAILS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 338, 27 September 1932, Page 6

CLAM FAILS

SALE OF MOTOR CAR BENCH COMMENTS ON HIRE PURCHASE CONDITIONS. PURCHASER SUCCEEDS.The ramifications of a series of transactions in motor cars under hire purchase agreements caused some strong comment from the magistrate, Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., who entered judgment against the plaintiff firm in the Rotorua Magistrate's Court yes- , terday. , 1 The action was brought by Paine Bros., Otahuhu, motor dealers (Mr. E. i Roe) against Stanley Harvey (Mr. 'R. Potter) to recover two instalments on . ' a Hudson car and also various sums charged against Harvey in connection with the repossession and sale of ( the car. John T. Foster Paine, managing di- ! rector of Paine Bros., Ltd., Otahuhu, ! gave evidence that Harvey had pur- | chased a Hudson car on a deposit of £10 5s 3d, with monthly instalments of £8 18s 3d. Default on the first two monthly instalments was made, and on May 1 the car was repossessed. Some correspondenee had passed, in which Harvey wrote that he was unable to obtain a taxi license and wished to give up the car. To the Bench: The sale was mad® in Rotorua. The Deal Outlined To Mr. Potter: Harvey had not written him saying that he had left the car at Bates and Son's with an intimation to the efPect that he could not go on with the deal. His firm had written to Bates, telling them to hold the car until the instalments were paid. Harvey had stated that he had spent £16 on the car. Prior to this Harvey had purchased a car through his firm, leaving £40 5s 6d owing, which his firm paid. Under the agreement of purchase from the sale of the car his firm would credit any surplus to the purchaser in the case of the car having been repossessed. There had never been any surplus on any car which his firm had repossessed. Witness had resold the car for £105, plus another car which he sold for £40, plus another car which he sold

for £45. The firm thus got £185 or its equivalent on the resale. There was no equity in the Chevrolet car which Harvey had traded in. It was now the custom for the purchaser to leave the price of the trade-in to the sell'er. It was not correct that Harvey had been allowed £125 on his Chevrolet car. The deal was £125, plus Harvey's car. The balance unaccounted for of approximately £30 was tbs finance. The expenses of reselling the car were £63. This included salesman's commission, repairs to the car, two trips to Rotorua. His firm also charged taking the car to Rotorua to sell, also repairs which his own sale note skowed were to be done free and work done on the car before the car was sold at all. He added these so as to show no loss to his firm. He had put in the cost of selling three cars at £33, since it was the average cost of selling a car. He could not say what the saies of these cars actually did cost. He had not made any allowance for any improvements Harvey had made to the car. He had heard that Harvey had had some trouble with the tyres. The firm had not caneelled the arrangement by mutual consent. His firm was still at j a loss over the whole business. To Mr. Roe: He had taken out the statement of the priees of the cost of saies so as to show that his firm was ( not making any large profit out of the sale of cars. As a matter of fact, his firm had lost £47 over the deal. For the defence, Mr. Potter said that the contract was caneelled by consent. Purchaser's Evidence Stanley Harvey gave evidence that he got the car about February 20 and agreed to pay £10 5s 3d deposit and £8 18s 3d a month. Harvey gave evidence of his transactions with the Chevrolet, which was falling to bits. He had bought it from Paine Bros. and had notified them and their salesman arrived with the Hudson. Finally defendant agreed to purchase the Hudson on the assurance that it was all right. The first night he had the car both tyres blew out and he found that the span was full of holes and camouflaged with black lead. Then he found that the car only did from 4 to 8 miles to the gallon instead of the 18 miles which the salesman had promised. Also the engine was "crook." After finding all this out he notified Paine Bros. that he did not intend to go on and that the car was in Bates' garage and they had better come and get it. When he left the car at Bates, one payment was due. He considered that he had been "rooked." To Mr. Roe: He had not growled about the Hudson since he had had trouble with the Chevrolet he bought from Paines. He considered that the car would be all right on the saies man's guarantee and had not read the agreement which he signed. He was not known as the "Sixty-mile-an-hour King from Timberlands." The Bench here pointed out that defendant could not have obtained a taxi license. Continuing, witness admitted that he had paid the deposit a week after

he had taken the car. The car had cost him £167 in six weeks. To Mr. Potter: He had tried to play fair and had even paid a man to drive the car in. "It is difficult to understand why people go in for these contracts. No wonder the country's poor," commented the Bench. "There will be judgment for defendant in equity and good conscience, each party to pay its own costs.