REHEARING ORDERED

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29353, 4 November 1960, Page 3

REHEARING ORDERED

Alleged Fraud In Car Sale

An order that a civil claim over the sale of a Holden car for £720 by Manchester Car Sales, Ltd., to S. E. Smith, a joiner, be reheard in the Magistrate’s Court on the issue of fraud only has been made by Mr Justice Richmond ip the Supreme Court The case came before his Honour by wav of an appeal by Manchester Car Sales, Ltd., against a Magistrate’s decision that this firm should pay Smith £95 damages. Mr J. G. Leggat appeared for Manchester Car Sales, Ltd., and Mr A. B. Harman for Smith. The Holden car was sold to Smith by a salesman named Perham, employed 'by Manchester Car Sales, Ltd., about August 26, 1958. Smith, in the lower Court claimed that the Holden was represented to him as a 1953 model and that this induced him to buy it. whereas the car was in fact a 1949 model. Smith further claimed that this representation was false and untrue to the knowledge of the defendant at the time it was made. Smith claimed he would not have bought the car at £720 if it had been represented to him as a 1949 model. Two Questions His Honour in his reserved judgment said the appeal resolved itself into two questions only—an appeal against the Magistrate’s finding of fraud and a consideration of the question of whether the correct measure of damages was applied by the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate, said his Honour, on the evidence before him made a fair assessment of the value of the ear at the time of the purchase at £625. The damages of £95 as fixed by him represented the difference between that figure and the purchase price of £720. After reviewing the evidence in the lower Court,, the Magistrate’s written decision and counsel submissions during the appeal hearing, his Honour commented that he had not had the benefit of hearing the witnesses and of observing their demeanour while giving evidence. He did not therefore think it proper for him to attempt to decide the correct answers to the two inquiries relating to the issue of fraud, namely: (1) Was Mr Perham expressly or impliedly instructed to represent the car as being a 1953 model? If so, did Mr Blogg, who may have instructed him, know the car was a 1949 model? (2) Alternatively, when Mr Perham represented the car as being a 1953 model, did he in fact know it was a 1949 one? “In the circumstances, I think the proper course to be adopted is to order a rehearing of the issue of fraud in the light of observations made by me,” said his Honour.