Claim over car sale fails

Press, 29 November 1978, Page 5

Claim over car sale fails

Iffhe courts

The managing director of an engineering company was the author of his own misfortune when he became involved in an “airy fairy” deal with many loose ends with a used-car company. Mr Justice Roper held in a reserved judgment given in the Supreme Court. Robert Heathcote Farrar, a managing director, failed in his claim for $2lOO from John’s Auto Plaza, Ltd. a used-car dealer, arising from the sale of Mr Farrar s 1973 Valiant car to the companv for which he received $4OO in cash, and a 1968 Chevrolet Impala car. The case was heard on September 21 when Mr C. B. Atkinson appeared for Mr Farrar and Mr J. Fogarty, for John’s Auto Plaza. Ltd,! which disputed the claim. Mr Farrar alleged that John Haig had made a negligent misrepresentation when he claimed that he could get $4600 for the Impala car which he was going to sell on Mr Farrar’s behalf, or alternatively that there was a breach of a collateral agreement. Mr Haig is managing director of John’s Auto Plaza. In his judgment his Honour said that in May, 1975, Mr Farrar decided to sell his 1973 Valiant car through P.D.L. Motors, Ltd, because he had been given the use of a vehicle by his 1 own firm and no longer had any use for his private car. On the morning of Satur-j day, May 31, Mr Farrar was! working in the yard of P.D.L. Motors on a car' owned by his son when he was approached by Mr Haig who said that he wanted to ! buy the Valiant. He did not| quibble at the price of $5OOO. It was proposed by Mr Haig that Mr Farrar should take in exchange for the Valiant an Impala owned by the defendant company and $4OO in cash. Mr Farrar had no real desire to become involved in a transaction which would necessitate his having to sell another vehicle for which he had no use himself, but in the end he agreed. It was common ground, | his Honour, said that Mr Haig had expressed the opinion that the Impala was w'orth $4600 and that he agreed to sell the vehicle in his own yard on Mr Farrar’s

behalf at no charge. The! cheque for $4OO was paid on May 31. On the Sunday evening Mr Farrar apparently had | some misgivings about the) ; transaction, which on reflec-j |tion he thought to be "a bit! airy fairy” and he tele-| phoned Mr Haig, who agreed 1 that there was a telephone conversation on that evening, but said that he could not remember the details of [it. According to Mr Farrar: he was assured by Mr Haig I that there was nothing to! worry about. On June 3 Mr Haig called on Mr Farrar and got him to sign a used vehicle contract 1 in which he agreed to purchase the Impala for $4600. and Mr Haig signed a docu-i ment which read: Received! from Mr R. H. Farrar Valiant car being a swap for the Chev. plus $4OO. Mr Farrar said that as Mr Haig appeared in a hurry he did not read the document before signing it — an oversight he now regretted. John’s Auto Plaza, advertised_ the Impala for sale- at $4895, but later reduced it to $4600 at Mr Farrar’s request. Sometime in August, 1975, Mr Farrar took possession of the Impaia under somewhat curious cir-j cumstances and placed it fori sale with P.D.L. Motors which eventually- sold it in 1 February, 1976. for $3OOO — 1 Mr Farrar receiving $2500. Now Mr Farrar claimed $2lOO from John’s Auto Plaza! on the basis that the agreed l price for the Valiant was! $5OOO and he received onlv $2900 — $4OO from the defendant company in cash ' and $2900 from the sale of the Impala. Mr Atkinson had sub-! mitted that there was a firm undertaking by Mr Haig to sell the Impala on Mr Farrar’s behalf for a guaranteed return of $4600, but Mr Farrar’s evidence fell well short: of establishing such an : undertaking and his belated' concern at the “airy-fairy” l nature of the transaction l supported the view that in! his mind the matter was far from being as clear cut as' was now suggested. On Mr Farrar’s evidence it! would seem that all he received from Mr Flaig was an opinion that the Impala was worth $4600 and an ex- 1 pressed confidence that that! figure would be realised. I

In evidence Mr Haig said' he had told Mr Farrar that the Impala was a perfectly gooJ car and that quite a bit of interest had been shown in it and he felt that it was a saleable item. Mr Haig: said that no guarantee of a! return of $4600 was given at' any stage. His Honour held that no collateral agreement, as alleged. had been made, and that there was no breach of duty by Mr Haig as was al-: leged. The Impala was resold! in August, 1973. for $45001 after the market, which had' been depressed for big cars' because of petrol price increases. had recovered. “I have some sympathy for Mr Farrar, but feel that he was rather the author of l

his own misfortune in becoming involved in a transaction with so many loose ends,” said his Honour. Judgment was given for John's Auto Plaza. When giving evidence Mr Farrar said that in August, 1975, when the Impala was still on sale at John’s Auto Plaza, he received a telephone call from an Invercargill car dealer who said that he was interested in the Impala and was at the Shirley Motor Lodge. The dealer said that he could not go to the car yard to inspect it because he was expecting important business telephone calls. He asked Mr Farrar to bring the car to the hotel.

When he telephoned John’s Auto Plaza, Mr Farrar said that he was told by the person who answered the telephone that the firm wanted him to remove the Impala from the yard because the space was wanted for new stock being purchased by Mr Haig" down south. On taking the Impala to the Shirley Motor Lodge Mr Farrar found that there was no-one booked in the hotel under the name given by the “Invercargill car dealer.” but th. • was a note from the dealer stating that he would visit Mr Farrar at his work, but he never arrived. This was the “curious circumstance” referred to by his Honour in his judgment.