VALIDITY OF CAR SALE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 752, 27 August 1929, Page 11

VALIDITY OF CAR SALE

MOTOR FIRMS AT VARIANCE JttftC PURCHASE AGREEMENT Tbat tfle Automobile Finance Co., ! Ltd., had not terminated its hire-pur-chase agreement ivith Williams before , he sold his motor-car to Todd Motors i Auckland) Ltd. was the judgment delivered by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., Ibis morning in a claim by the Finance Co. for the possession of a motorcar. or its value, against Todd Motors. Mr. Cutten also held that the plaintiff company had no right, under the circumstances. to terminate its agreement. Mr. L. B. Hayes apepared for the plaintiff company and Mr. A. J. Goldstein and Mr, F. L. G. West for Todd Motors. A motor-car was bought from an Auckland firm by one Williams, through a hire-purchase agreement held by the Finance Company. Williams was behind in two payments and. on being interviewed on July 9, explained that he would like to trade in his car for a new one. The manager of the Finance Company suggested that Williams should buy a car of a certain make and that his company should finance the deal, subject to the payment of the overdue instalment before July 19. Williams went to the agent named, but was unable to secure a suitable car. He then bought a car from Todd Motors, giving his other motor in aprt payment. On July 10 plaintiff learned of Welliams’ intentions and tried to serve him with a notice terminating the hire-purchase agreement on the grounds that instalments were overdue. Plaintiff's agent failed to find Williams, but found the car in Todd’s garage. Defendant refused to surrender possession, but offered to pay the amount still owing to plaintiff. This sum was later paid into Court. The Automobile Finance Company claimed that the agreement with Williams not to press for payment until July 19 was made on the understanding that he bought a motor of the make they specified. They held that his failure to do this made him liable owing to his arrears on the hire-pur-chase agreement. The magistrate, however, held that Williams was justified in buying a car other than the one mentioned under the circumstances. The plaintiff company was entitled only to the amount still owing under its agreement. Judgment was entered accordingly for defendant for the balance, with costs and witnesses expenses against the plaintiff company.