Civil claim on TV game

Press, 6 July 1978, Page 5

Civil claim on TV game

PA Blenheim A $34,120 civil claim by a Blenheim couple against those who sold them coinslot electronic games was heard in the Supreme Court at Blenheim last week. Judgment was reserved. The claim by Richard Norman Silcock and Phyllis Nola Silcock alleged they were given false or misleading representations relating to the electronic games. The defendants were Vernon Rudolph Peterson, N.Z. Cash Box Distributors, Ltd, and N.Z. Cash Box Amusements, Ltd, all represented by Mr J. Alexander, of Auckland. During the three-day hearing before Mr Justice Quilliam, the Silcocks, represented by Mr J. F. Drylie, told how they bought 22 “TV Tennis” machines from the defendants. According to the Silcocks, representations were made that they would get an income of $lB,OOO a year from the machines, placed in various public-use spots. Apart from claiming that the representations had been false, and either known to be untrue, or made recklessly, the plaintiff’s case sought relief on contracts. A number of witnesses were called. The plaintiff said the games had produced little

more than $3OOO since thev were bought in 1974. The amount sought through the Court was that paid out to buy the electronic game units. In his evidence, Mr Peterson said he was a person experienced in amusement game sale and operation, and that he had obtained details of the success of TV tennis from overseas publications. He said he had also made inquiries from Australia and the United States. The defendant’s case stated that representations made to the Silcocks were made on the basis of information obtained at that time.