Car sales manager fined $300

Press, 15 July 1982, Page 4

Car sales manager fined $300

The managing director of a Christchurch car sales firm was convicted and fined $3OO in the District Court yesterday for what Judge Hay described as a deliberate scheme to circumvent provisions of regulations relating to the sale of a car. The breach was said to have related .to his efforts "to help a friend" meet the 60 per cent deposit requirement in the purchase of a vehicle. The defendent. Francis Anthony Crowe, aged 50. proprietor of Christchurch Car Sales, Ltd. Colo'mbo Street, admitted a charge that on November 16 last year he unlawfully failed to comply with Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Stabilisation Regulations in respect of an agreement for disposal of a Morris car to Natalie Nina Parata.

Sergeant W. J. McCormick said Mrs Parata inspected a Morris car advertised for sale for $995 at the firm's premises. She- traded in her

Humber car for $4OO towards its purchase. The defendant completed a vehicle offer and sale agreement and showed the tradein price of the Humber as $l2OO and the price of the Morris as $2OOO, instead of $995.

A hire-purchase agreement was also made out arranging finance for the balance outstanding on the Morris, and this also showed its price as $2OOO, instead of $995. The falsification of documents brought the minimum deposit up to 60 per cent of the purchase price required under the Hire Purchase and Credit Sales Stabilisation Regulations, Sergeant McCormick said.

The defendant, when spoken to by police in relation to the false entries, agreed he had put false figures, to show the minimum deposit was SO per cent. He agreed it was unlawful to do so but said he was only helping a friend to obtain a vehicle. Mrs Parata consulted the Consumers’ Institute and the matter was settled with the car sales firm, and no compensation was sought.

Mr C. B. Atkinson, for the defendant, said there was no falisfication of documents, and the defendant and Mrs

Parata had entered into a “bargain" for the transaction.

The element of offending, “if there was such,” was in the decision entered into by both parties because the purchaser could not afford the minimum deposit.

There was no falsity, but there had been an evasion of the regulations which prescribed that a minimum deposit of 60 per cent in cash should be available. The defendant had known Mrs Parata and her family for many years.

Mr Atkinson said the only loser over the incident was the defendant, and he asked that the matter be treated as an extremely technical one which caused nobody any harm except the defendant.