ALLEGED DEFECTIVE MOTOR TIRES

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 16, 18 July 1918, Page 8

ALLEGED DEFECTIVE MOTOR TIRES

1 civil ' Claim and - counter- .-..-•;-•..- claim.- --■;

• Automobile agents, motorists, and tire dealers generally will be interested in the reserved judgment delivered by Mr*; W. G. Biddell, S.M., this morning in a civil case in whidi B. W. Pidgeon and Co., Ltd., merchants, of Christchurch, proceeded against the Nattrass and Harris- Motor- 80.,~ Ltd., Wellington, on a claim for "£56 '10s *lld" for" tires alleged to have, been supplied. A counter-claim for £131 "Os lid was entered by the defendants, who formally admitted the claim. The sum of £131 0s lid, it was alleged,-was due-by-plaintiffs for adjustments on defective motor tires supplied to Oakland cars sold by defendants, and for which they, the defendants, had given .compensation to different purchasers. In the course of his judgment, the Magistrate said that plaintiffs are the vendors and distributors in New Zealand of .Goodrich :. tires, and the defendants agents in the North Island for Oakland cars,/""fitted with Goodrich tires. Prior -fOj - and since May,'. 1917, defects were found "inutile tires and complaints made by the?'defendant company to plaintiffs with a view of obtaining substitutes for defective tires while crediting plaintiff . with ..any service rendered by those .tires. ;Prior to May, 1917, no definite arrangement existed between the parties up'on-.which "adjustments should be made., On 9th May, 1917, Mr. Horton, manager of E.. W. Pidgeon and Co., Christchurch, stated that the plaintiffs were .willing to adjust claims in respect of defective tires on a 3000 mile basis. It must be assumed from the correspondence that took place .between the parties that plaintiffs ■ acknowledged some . liability to the defendants and other Oakland, agents to. adjust claims .for'Goodrich'tires found to be deficient in quality. Adjustments were- allowed by plaintiffs in many-cases-where tires hadbeen returned v to them and the adjustments accepted:'>: In'some"'cases the tires forwarded to plaintiffs-were returned to the Goodrich company and no adjustmentswere allowed."' There was no'evidence .that defendants protested • in any way against the conditions of adjustment laid, down by" plaintiffs; and "continued-to forward defective tires and. accepted adjustments made. : Judgment ■ was given Jioiy the' full amount of the claim, with ,:£4 16s 6d ;costs,...and bit :.the counterclaim of £17 7s lid and £5 19s costs.

At the hearing Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiffs', and Mr. A. W, Blair for the defendants.