DEPOSIT ON CAR

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 October 1931, Page 3

DEPOSIT ON CAR

CLAIM FOR REFUND FAILS A claim for the refund of £3O, the amount of deposit paid on a motorcar, and £3 10/- the amount spent on repairs, was made at the Greymouth Court yesterday afternoon by William James Delaney, clerk of works, Kaimata (Mr. M. B. James), against Nash Motors, Ltd., of Christchurch (Mr. A. H. Paterson). It was alleged that the contract had not been completed, but Mr. Meldrum, S.M., decided in favour of defendant.

Plaintiff’s evidence was to the effect that, in January last, he was approached by Allison, a salesman, who suggested that he should purchase a Chrysler coupe for £l3O. Plaintiff tried the car out, and noticed certain defects. He said that, if these were remedied, he would be prepared to discuss the purchase. Allison took the I car away, and fixed up a “knock” in the engine. He brought the car back, and plaintiff tried it out on a trip to Hokitika. He then noticed that the differential was not in order, the lights were affected, the tyres, with the exception of two. were not good, and there were other items. Plaintiff told Allison that he would take the car, provided repairs were effected- Allison said that he would approach the company, and see whether they would do the repairs. On January 14, Allison took the car to Kaimata x and was accompanied by Donald, whom he introduced to plaintiff as the company’s chief agent on the West Coast. The sale was agreed upon, on condition that repairs were effected, and a sale note was sighed. The deposit was paid in February, but the repairs were never effected. On April 27, Donald took the car away, with the intention of having the repairs done, but the car was never returned. Plaintiff got in touch with Donald, who said that he had been instructed to seize the car, until the payments were brought up-to-date. Plaintiff then notified the company that, as the repairs had not been effected, he was not prepared to go on with the deal. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that he signed white papers on two occasions, but did not sigh a yellow paper. He denied that the signature on the yellow paper (a hire-purchase agreement) was his, and he also denied that a man named Ryan witnessed his signature. He did not meet any man named Ryan at Christchurch. To Mr. Paterson: He did not sign a hire-purchase agreement. He was asked to sign a proposal for an insurance policy, and did so, without reading it, as he was busy. The signature on the yellow paper was very like his signature, and he would not swear that it was not his. He characterised the statements made by Allison in his evidence as “all rot.” The car was taken by Donald, he stated, by trickery, under the pretence that it was to be repaired. Some of his own property was taken away in the car. Donald was wrong when he said that lie did not promise to return the car.

To Mr. James: When Donald took the car away oh April 27, he did not say anything about repossessing it. After he paid the deposit, he thought the car would be put in order, and he was quite prepared to go on with the purchase. Frank Sparks, carpenter, of Kaimata, stated that he was at Christchurch in February, with Delaney. They went to the Nash Motors’ garage, where witness was also buying a car. Air. Ryan d[d not interview them, and witness did not know any man there named Ryan. The sales manager, Batchelor, stated that he would visit the AVest Coast in a few days to fix up their cars, but he did not arrive. They could not speak to Donald at Christchurch, because, as soon as he caught sight of them, he started to vanish. He slipped away every time he saw them. To Air. Paterson: Witness’s car was not fixed up, and he gave it back to Nash Motors. Harold Hepry Robinson, motor mechanic, of Kaimata, stated that Delaney consulted him about the car, and witness pointed out a number of defects. In reply to Air. Paterson, he admitted that some of the defects might have developed after the car went into Delaney’s possession. The only defect he noticed at first was a “knock” in the engine, which was rectified by witness and Allison.

James Brennan, carpenter, of Kaimata, jlso gave evidence. The evidence for the defence had been taken in Christchurch and copies were put into Court. Messrs Paterson and James addressed the Court.

The S.M. stated that the ground for the claim was that the contract was not completed. The question was, whether there was a contract. Plaintiff alleged that it was conditional, the condition being that the .car was to be placed in good running order by the defendant. That was denied by defendant, who claimed that it was a complete sale, and was completed by (a) the sale note on January 14, (b) the hire-purchase agreement on January 17, and (c) the payment of the deposit on February 7 or 8. The sale note contained the provision: “No warranty, either expressed or implied, is given with any second-hand car, excepting any guarantee which may for the time being be given in writing from the head office -of the company.” “There is no doubt in my mind,” said the S.M., “that there was a contract completed between the parties. The car subsequently came into the possession of the defendant company. What has happened to it does not affect the present action. The action is merely to claim recovery of the deposit which was paid shortly after the completion of the sale.” ’the action was not one for failure on the part of the company to do certain things which they had undertaken to do, nor was it one for damages lor wrongful seizure of the car. ’1 he onlj point to decide was ’ whether tlm deposit was lawfully paid in the first place. a<nd whether it was lawfully received by the defendant company. In his opinion, there was a complete contract at the time the deposit was paid, and defendant was entitled to retain it. He therefore gave judgment for defendant. Air. Paterson asked for costs. The S.AI.: You are entitled to costs in this Court, and two hearings in Christchurch. The costs amounted to £9 13/6 (Courts £2 6/6, solicitors’ fees £7 7/-).