SALESMAN'S ACTION

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 130, 3 June 1936, Page 8

SALESMAN'S ACTION

CLAUSE IN AGREEMENT

"EXTRAORDINARY PROVISION"

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

PALMERSTON N., This Day.

Interesting comment on the rights of firms to seize goods bought under hirepurchase agreements when payments are not kept up was made by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., yesterday, during the hearing of a civil action for damages for assault.

A married woman, Myrtle Irwin, gave evidence that her husband had bought a radio set and paid off £29, leaving £5 owing. A salesman called to collect the set, but she refused him admission. The salesman told her he had the right to break in doors and windows to get the set according to the terms of the purchasing agreement. She dared him to enter, whereupon the salesman tried to push his way in, catching hold of her arms. Then her husband came on the scene and the salesman desisted and finally left. The incident greatly upset her, retarding her recovery from a nervous breakdown. This evidence was corroborated, but the defendant denied being closer than two .feet to Mrs. Irwin. The Magistrate perused the hirepurchase agreement, and stated that no Court would uphold a breaking-open clause such as the agreement contained, despite the fact that counsel stated it was prominent in many agreements of the kind. He advised that the words had better be deleted as the clause was wide enough to cover breaking into someone else's house to recover goods, for which anyone would get gaol. The defendant had not asked if the husband was home, but demanded the wireless, quoting the extraordinary provision of the agreement that he could enter the premises at any time. A salesman should not bully a woman in the absence of her husband. If-the Arm wanted to recover the balance due they should have sued, said Mr. Stout. Anyone going to recover goods should have a letter from the firm, otherwise any thief could operate. No firm had the right to seize anything practically paid for with the only moneys owing being for interest and repairs. Even a threat to enter premises was an assault when told not

to. The defendant was fined £3,