A MOTORING DEAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 29, 4 February 1927, Page 10

A MOTORING DEAL

BUYER DISSATISFIED

QUESTION OF MILEAGE

An unusual action arising out of Hie purchase of a motor-car was commenced before his Honour Mr. Justice Ostler in the- Supreme Court to-day, when Fred-' crick William Man ton, merchant, of Wellington, claimed £400 from Crossley Motors .(-New Zealand), Limited The statement of claim set out that about 4th April, 1925, the defendants sold the plaintiff a Crossley motor-ear tor £1085, which the plaintiff paid It was alleged that it was a condition of sale that the motor-car would run 20 miles for the expenditure of one gallon of petrol. The condition was verbal, and the plaintiff said that such representation induced him to buy the car. He further alleged that the car was of an inferior description and quality than had been stated, and would not run twenty miles "to a gal- [ lon, but only an average of-SH miles, [and 114 miles under the /best" conditions. Consequently, Manton claimed that the car was -worth £400 less than if it had been of the description, capacity, and quality which it was alleged had been stated. The plaintiff further said that the car was not of merchantable quality; that it was not perfect and complete in its respective parts and free from faults and defects; that it was not manufactured properly and with all due skill and of the best quality, material, and workmanship; and that it was not reasonably fit for the purpose for which he required it, and for which it was supplied. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant company £400 damages. THE COMPA2TY'3 VIEW. The defence admitted the sale of the car, but denied that there was a condition of sale that tTie car would run 20 miles for the expenditure of one gallon of petrol. The defendants denied that the condition was made either verbally or in writing at any time, or that any other representation was made upon the sale regarding mileage per gallon of petrol. The defendants denied that the motor-car was not of the description or quality stated in any representation made by or on behalf of the defendant company, or that it was of an inferior quality and description. It was denied that the car had averaged 9| miles to the gallon as the plaintiff alleged. The defendants denied that the car was worth £400 less than the price paid, and they stated that the car was delivered to the plaintiff in good order and condition, and complied with the specification submitted to the plaintiff in writing, and was in all respects of the' description, capacity, and quality represented. The defendants said the car was in all respects reasonably fit for the purpose pf the plaintiff. As a further defence, the company said that the only representation or guarantee made, on the sale was the guarantee contained in the catalogue of the company. The company further said that the contract for sale was a sale of a specified article under its trade name, and that there was no implied condition as'to its fitness for any particular purpose. In a counter-claim the defendants said that the plaintiff was indebted to them to the extent of £12 13s for work done and material supplied. Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. D. M. Findlay j for the defendant company. PLAJJNTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Evidence in support of his allegations J was given by Manton, who said that on several long trips in the country the car averaged between 9 and 11 miles to the gallon; while driving about the ] city the average was between 7 and 8 ' miles. Witness also gave evidence of stoppages he had had with the car. In 1926, after the car had travelled about 5000 miles, he offered to return it for £700. The Court adjourned for.the luncheon hour, during which a trip in the car was made,' at his Honour's suggestion.