Magistrate’s Court Damages Of £200 Claimed After Purchase Of Vehicle

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28528, 6 March 1958, Page 9

Magistrate’s Court Damages Of £200 Claimed After Purchase Of Vehicle

The hearing of a £2OO claim for damages, arising out of the sale of a utility vehicle, was adjourned sine die by Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Decision on an application for non-suit was reserved.

John Wilfred Tinniswood, a farmer, of Purau (Mr G. H. Gould), sought £2OO in damages from South Island Holdings, Ltd., of Lyttelton (Mr J. G. Rutherford), alleging a breach of warranty. Tinniswood claimed that a 1948 vehicle which he bought from the defendant company in October, 1956, was not in good mechanical order at the time of sale, in spite of an endorsement to this effect, signed by Albert William Henry Falla, the manager of the firm, on the sale note.

Mr Rutherford, for the company, said that if there had been any misrepresentation, and none was admitted, it was unintentional, and the plaintiff’s course was to seek the recission of the contract. He could not claim damages. Evidence for Tinniswood showed that the vehicle had been sold three times previously, for £2BO, £2OO and £350, and was bought by the plaintiff for £5lO. Plaintiff’s Evidence He would not have bought the vehicle without the endorsement on the sale note, said Tinniswood in evidence. He had been told that new piston rings and bearings had been fitted. When he drove the vehicle to his farm at Purau he found that there was a steady flow of oil from behind the gear-box.. “It wouldn’t have taken more than three or four hours to drain the sump,” he said. He twice took the vehicle

back to the defendant company but it still lost oil pressure and was blowing smoke. The only satisfaction he was given was that it would take some time for the new piston rings to work in. The vehicle had done 1700 miles since he bought it—the greater part around the farm, but only about 20 or 30 miles towing light implements. He began towing implements within a day or so of taking delivery, said Tinniswood to Mr Rutherford. He towed light harrows and a mower. “I knew at the time I purchased the vehicle that I should run it in. I drove it carefully to Purau. It was all right to tow light implements—if I had purchased a tractor I would have done the same.” Since March, 1957, his only major repairs had been the replacement of oil seals, at a cost of about £lO, said the plaintiff. His claim was based on his contention that the vehicle was not in good mechanical condition at the time of sale, as warranted. “The vehicle would be of no use to pull implements for any length of time,” he said. “Because of the drop in oil pressure serious damage could be done to the vehicle. I couldn’t take it any distance on the road for fear of a breakdown.” Mechanic’s Report Colin Chaston, a mechanic, gave evidence that, in an examination in July. 1957, he found that the gears slipped out of high range, that the rings and valves were in poor condition, that there was loss of oil pressure, indicating worn bearings, and that the vehicle was not in good mechanical repair. The vehicle could not have been in that condition at the time of his inspection, after only 750 miles’ running, if it had been in good mechanical order at the time of sale to the plaintiff, he said

Wallace Charles Wiggins, in a deposition taken in Greymouth, said he had fitted new piston rings and bearings, and the vehicle when it left his hands immediately before sale to Tinniswood, was in good mechanical order. “If, as Mr Wiggins .has said in his evidence, ‘Mr Falla told me to overhaul the engine and put it in first-class mechanical order.’ do you think he carried out his instructions?” asked Mr Rutherford.

“Not thoroughly, definitely not,” replied Chaston.

It was possible that Wiggins had. as he claimed in evidence, fitted rings and bearings, said Chaston in answer to the Magistrate. But this was wasted, as a maior overhaul* was required.

Richard John Powers, service supervisor at Amuri Motors, said + hat when he saw the vehicle, in July, 1957, the engine was filthy and showing signs of advanced wear. It was highly improbable that that amount of wear could have occurred in even 1000 miles Reginald David Pool, clerk of the Court, produced a summons for service on Bert Falla, being a claim for £4O 2s for motor repairs during the months of October and December, 1956. Non-Suit Sought

No real attempt had* been made to prove damages, said Mr Rutherford, in his claim for a non-suit. The sum of £2OO “seemed to have been thought of at random.”

The statement of claim alleged that no rings and bearings had been fitted, but it had since been proved in evidence that they had. he continued. If there had been misreoresentation it was very apparent, from Wiggins’s evidence, that it was innocent. The hearing was adjourned sine