ROLLS ROYCE CLAIM

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30294, 21 November 1963, Page 17

ROLLS ROYCE CLAIM

Court Finds For Plaintiff Judgment for the plaintiff was given by Mr A. P. Blair, S.M.. in a written decision on a civil case involving the sale of a Rolls Royce car. The case was heard in the Magistrate's Court, Rangiora, on October 1 and was adjourned to Christchurch for legal submissions and a decision. The plaintiff, Eric Clarkson. claimed that the defendant, William Juet Roberts, misrepresented the condition of a Rolls Royce car he sold in July. Clarkson bought the car for £625 and after he had had it for a very short period it was shown to have some quite serious defects. Roberts denied that he made the representations alleged by the plaintiff and said that the car was in good condition at the time of sale. He asserted that its subsequent deterioration was caused by the mismanagement and fault of the plaintiff. Clarkson was represented by Mr N. D. Thomson, and Roberts by Mr K. H. Th waites.

The Magistrate ordered the car to be returned to the defendant and ordered him to repay the £625 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was allowed costs. The defects in the car included a cracked cylinder head which appeared to have been there for some time, a leaking radiator, perished electrical wiring, piston slap and faulty footbrakes, said the Magistrate in his decision. The Magistrate accepted the defendant’s evidence of himself as something of an expert on Rolls Royce cars, and could not escape the inference that he knew about the poor condition of the car when he sold it. As well as denying the car was in poor condition, the defendant also denied that he made representation about it being in good condition, said the Magistrate. ‘I feel bound to say that because of his untrue statements relating to the condition of the car. I cannot accept the defendant as a credible or reliable witness.” said the Magistrate. “I accept the fact that he did in fact make the representations alleged by the plaintiff.