QUESTION OF CONTRACT.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1920, Page 6

QUESTION OF CONTRACT.

• v PURCHASE OF MOTOR CAR* j THE SALE OF GOODS ACT. , Reserved judgment wag given at tho New Plymouth Court yesterday by Mr. Bailey, S.M., in the case of D. K. Logan and others, trustees under the will of the late R. D. Morrison, against Andrew Smith, being a claim ,for £125 for breach of a contract to purchase a motor car. The defendant, on trying the car, found that it did not suit him on account of some difficulty in starting it, and did# not take delivery of it. The contract on which the plaintiffs relied was contained in four telegrams, the last of which was from N. H. James, of Masterton, secretary to the plaintiffs, accepting Smith's offer of £750, and advising him to arrange with Mrs. Morrison for delivery. When Smith did not take the car communications between the solicitors for the parties followed regarding the payment of the purchase money, defendant's counsel being advised that if Smith repudiated the deal plaintiffs proposed to. sell the car and sue for the deficiency. Several lines of defence were raised, the first being that there was not a sufficient memorandum in writing under the Sale of Goods Act. Regarding this His* Worship says: The memorandum should designate the parties by name or description, the goods, the price if agreed upon, and must show directly or by implication the nature of the promise of the party to be charged. The telegrams forming the alleged contract have no indication as to who the vendor is. They passed between a Mr. James and the defendant. It is clear from the telegram sent by James that he is not the vendor. The fact that the purchaser knew who the vendor was is not sufficient. lam therefore of opinion that there is not a sufficient memorandum to bind the defendant. The second line of defence was that if the memorandum was sufficient to form a binding contract the ownership of the car passed to the defendant, and he was entitled to reasonable notice before plaintiffs could re-sell the car. His Worship was of opinion that reasonable notice <was not given by plaintiffs. Judgment was therefore given for the defendant, with costs, £9 7s 6d. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O. At. the hearing Mr. H. R. Biss (Masterton) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. H Billing for the defendant.