Racing car claim fails

Press, 18 March 1977, Page 18

Racing car claim fails

A Wellington companydirector, who sued P.D.L. Motors, Ltd, for a total of $16,410 lost his case and was ordered to pay the defendant motor company! $1849 on a counter claim by I Mr Justice Casey in the! Supreme Court in Christ-] church.

$1849 on a counter claim, according to a reserved decision given by Mr Justice Casey in the Supreme Court.

The case was heard «on February 21 when Mr J. R. Milligan appeared for the company director, Glenn Mclntyre, and Mr A. A. P. Willy for P.D.L. Motors, Ltd. The Judge then reserved his decision. The claim arose Over a proposal for P.D.L. Motors, Ltd, to install a more powerful motor in Mr Mclntyre’s Fiat 124 car which had been modified for racing. The work was never completed. Mr Mclntyre claimed that there was a fixed-sum contract to fit a special lightweight eight-cylinder motor in his car and to have it ready for the beginning of the 1974-1975 racing season. The defendant company denied that there was such a contract.

The plaintiff, Mr Mclntyre, alleged that the defendant company had entered into a contract to do the work for $5OOO but did not complete the work and refused to do so until there was a payment greatlv in excess of the $5OOO. His Honour found that the original proposal was abandoned as a result of discussions following the delivery of the car to the defendant company in September, and in its place an agreement w-as made for the company to install another engine with appropriate modifications.

That arrangement was entered into because it was found that the original motor which was to be installed in the car was unsuitable for the class in which the car was to be raced. “I am satisfied that Mr Mclntyre was fully aware of and authorised all the work to be done, but 1 think it fair to say that, while no fixed price was agreed to, the parties hoped that the modifications might be completed close to the $5OOO originally contemplated,” said his Honour.

In view of his finding in favour of the defendant’s version of events, Mr Mclntyre’s case — based on a contract which no longer existed — must fail, his Honour said.