DISPUTED SALE

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 7, 8 July 1938, Page 7

DISPUTED SALE

HORSE ON APPROVAL

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF

A horse deal was the subject of a fcivil action in fhe Lower Hutt Court yesterday, when J. E. Bentley, farmer, of Taita, claimed £20 from Miss A. M. Perry, of Trentham. Mr. A. M.. Goulding, SMfj was on the Bench. There was e counter-claim for £6 6s for grazing. Mr. C. R. Barrett represented the plaintiff and Mr. R. E. Tripe the defendant.'- '■: .'I/'.: ■'■■■'■. ■ " • J. Ei-Betttley said that on April 21 Miss Perry called to see th# horse and after a demonstration took it away. The price was fixed at £20 on a week's trial. He thought the horse was wanted for its jumping ability, Miss Perry having a riding school. The defendant said she would look after the horse. Thirteen days later Mr. McAuley, a trainer, called and left a message that the horse had a kinked neck. Later Miss Perry rang him and said the horse had kinked its neck and she did not want it. On May 19 he inspected the horse. He told Miss Perry he held her responsible for the horse because she had not returned it in the specified time.

Colin M. Bentley, son of the plaintiff, said he rode the horse when Miss Perry called on April 21. It was neither sore nor lame.

Evidence was given to the effect that the term "a week's trial" was elastic.

Frank Whiteman, farmer, whose property adjoins Miss Perry*s, said the horse would not stay in its paddock v and came into witness's place. The ' horse did not limp but had an awkward gait.

Mrs. Jessie Crawford, sister of the defendant, said she went with her sister to see the horse the first time. She thought theft that the horse was sore. In those circumstances a further trial would tie necessary to see if the soreness cleared up.

In reply to Mr. Barrett the witness said she meant lameness by soreness.

The defendant said that when she first saw the horse it was limping. On" April 21 when she called the second time, there was still something wrong with a leg. Nothing was said about the horse having to be approved within seven days. She had the horse reshod at her own.expense. She came to the conclusion that the horse was not sound. The week was up oh the Thursday (April 28). She intended to return the horse in the next week-end. When Mr. Bentley called he said bef6re seeing the horse, "Before going any further I hold you responsible." He said he had lost a sale through the horse and he did not think it would get better. The horse was led down to 3!aita but Mr. Bentley would not tak'e ii

The Magistrate stated that this was a; contract for a sale under the Sale of Goods Act. Here was a simple commercial transaction in which Miss Perry went with people who were capable of judging horseflesh and came back again after a telephone conversation with the owner in which the price was mentioned and also a definite term on trial. On her own evidence she knew that if she did not want the horse she could have returned it. If the buyer did not return the animal at the end of seven days the contract was complete. He gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and judgment for the plaintiff with costs in respect to the coun-ter-claim.