WEIGHT OF LORRIES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 755, 30 August 1929, Page 6

WEIGHT OF LORRIES

FREIGHT-CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM FAILS ROTORUA-TAUPO ROADS How conditions of the RotoruaTaupo roads, which are classified as fourth-class for motor-lorry transport, affect a motor service company in the purchase of a vehicle was indicated to Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday. Th© point was raised in claim for £167 3s 9d brought by Henry Langguth, who trades as the Rotorua-Taupo Freight Company, against a firm of motor dealers, the International Harvester Company, Limited, of New Zealand. The claim arose out of a hire-pur-chase agreement entered into on March 16, 1929, by Langguth, to buy a truck chassis for £BO6. The sum of £IOO was paid as deposit. It was alleged that the defendant company had supplied a chassis weighing more than 2 tons, 2cwt, \thereas the vendors knew that a vehicle of more than 1 ton 15cwt was useless, in view of the fact that the maximum weight of vehicle and load allowed on the roads was limited to 4 tons. A further allegation was that the defendant firm had wrongfully seized another wrecked truck sold to Ldngguth for £35 on March r 6. Failure to pay the balance of purchase money totalling £435 on the truck chassis and the wrecked vehicle was alleged in counter-claim for £487. A further allegation was that Langguth knew that the chassis was over 1 ton 15cwt when he bought it and that he had also failed to trade in another truck as arranged. Mr. Hoe appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Johnstone and Mr. Goodall represented defendants. DIFFERENCE OF 28s DAILY Henry Langguth gave evidence of having purchased a wrecked truck from the firm at £35. While in Auckland on March 16, be was induced by the firm’s agents to purchase a new truck chassis, the w'eight of which was Quoted at 1 ton 15cwt. He made it clear that he wanted a lighter truck than he was already running. Fie had to keep the weight of the chassis down as near as possible to 2 tons so he could run a “pay load.’* An agreement was made for the hire-pur-chase of the new chassis at £BO6, a deposit of £IOO being paid by witness. The sale of the wrecked truck was also provided for. A further arrangement was that the defendant firm should allow £3OO on

the trade-in of another truck by Langguth. The new truck chassis proved, including tho cab and body, to weigh 2 tons 10cwt, and 2 tons 3cwt stripped The firm’s agent was surprised when notified of this, said witness, and endeavoured to induce him to take a lighter model, but he declined. He instructed the agent to take away the chassis as it was of no value and tho vehicle was removed. He had expected a vehicle equipped with body and cab would be 2 tons 3c«.t, on which he could carry a 30cwt load over 112 miles This meant a difference of 2Ss a day. Subsequently tho firm seized tho wrecked truck, which lie handed over under protest. The defendant firm now had possession of the new chassis, the wrecked vehicle «.nd the £IOO deposit witness iiad paid. Corroborative evidence was given by Winifred Langguth. Evidence for the defence was given by George W. Spencer, outside manager of defendant firm. Fie said lie was unaware of the weight of the lorry chassis that Langguth bought, and witness had suggested weighing the vehicle. No complaint of misrepresentation had been made by Langguth when he first objected to the chassis weight. Witness estimated that the truck, which had been run by plaintiff for about 850 miles, had depreciated between £l5O and £2OO. At this stage, by direction of the judge, the parties settled minor claims in dispute. Holding that there had been no common mistake in the deal over the chassis, his Honour entered judgment for defendant company on the claim and for £l5O on the counter-claim, £IOO of which had been paid, representing depreciation on the truck.