U.S. VEHICLES SALE

Grey River Argus, 24 August 1946, Page 3

U.S. VEHICLES SALE

BUYERS’ PROFITS Gillies’ Statements WELLINGTON, Aug. 23. At the vehicles inquiry, the witness Gillies was-asked by Mr Leicester what price he and his sons got for trucks. Witness replied: “Up to £lOOO and more.” When he and his sons tendered for the vehicles they thought the disposal would occupy at least five years. None of his sons had exchanged a truck for a car or for some timber. A new hydraulic hoise as fitted to some trucks , would be worth £3BO. Witness had sold trucks fitted with hoists at £950. Witness did not know that a Wellington firm would be prepared to take 200 to 300 wrecked trucks. He did not agree that his firm had charged exorbitant prices. Many people who bought the G.M.C.’s for £6OO to £lOOO had expressed satisfaction and come back for more. Witness in reply to Mi’ P. B. Cooke said his tender had borne a definite relation to the value he put on the vehicles. For the Dodges and Jeeps separately he had tendered a total of £9260. In March when he had retendered after Archibald’s release, he had named £26,101 for the two lots, because having started operations on the G.M.C.’s he felt secured and could see there was liable to be a better market than at the time of his first tender. That was the sole reason for the increase of £17,000. His second tender was unsuccessful. Whether he could sell all the trucks he could recondition —300 if he was lucky—depended entirely on the arrival of new trucks. Great damage had been done to the G.M.C.’s in removal of the jeeps from the trucks. He would not have permitted the prospective buyers of jeeps to clamber over the G.M.C.’s to inspect them. Mr Leicester stated that on Monday Gillies would produce a gross statement o£ his sales of G.M.C. trucks, parts and scrap. The Commissioner, Mr Bartholomew, said that* the arrangement would be satisfactory. Private affairs must take second place where the public interest was concerned.. Re-examined by Mr Hoggard, Gillies said he paid fifteen pounds a ton for three tons of specially selected scrap. In paying five hundred pounds for the remainder of the 200 tons, he bought a high proportion of worthless junk. To the Commissioner, Gillies said that individual examination of the Dodges took two men two days. Most of the jeeps and G.M.C.’s were more difficult to access. Market for the G.M.C.’s was limited to timber and other heavy haulage, such as from open cast coal mines and lime works. His valuation of G.M.C.’s over a week had bben a good approximate appraisal of the vehicles. Morton Gladstone Tuck, sawmiller, of Hamilton, said he had nearly 50 years’ experience of all methods ol traction used at a mill. For one G.M.C. he paid the Army Department £1650. It had been quite satisfactory and he bought six six-by-sixes from Gillies at an average of £250. Of these he made two mobile without any delay. The trucks were very good indeed, and were doing more woik than a six-by-four could. The tyres were much better than the wartime new tyres. In May he bought two more GM.C.’s for himself at about £6OO each, and ‘wo for his brother at £750 each. His own purchase-; were mobile after a slight alteration, and of the remaining lour of h s first buy he expected to pi educe at least another truck and two trailers. The mobilised trucks were much superior to the £1650 ex-Army vehicle. Kenneth Clifford Alwyn Cater manager of Perham Larsen and Company, Ohakune, sawmillers, said he had been very satisfied with the rear ends of the G.M.C.’s for trailers. The G.M.C. was not an ideal logging truck, but was the best available on to-day’s market. He thought that the industi’y would be prepared to standarise G.M.C.’s if their price was right, but Gillies wanted £650 to £950 and there was no guarantee that the cheaper ones would go. Witness had bought two of 25 G.M.C.’s in new condition offered by the Army foi £1650 each. He thought the reason that the milling industry had not absorbed lots was because of the price. LOTS TOO LARGE? George Tidswell, Director of Auto Parts, Ltd., Wellington, said that he thought that his company, with ten branches in New Zealand, was the largest car-wrecking concern in the Dominion. They would only be interested in selling scrap if it included quick-selling lines', such as- tyres, wheels, electrical accessories, etc. Witness thought that his firm could dismantle, for their parts, from 200 to 300 vehicles in three months; and possibly 500 in nine months. Some smaller firms were als-o in a position to handle such material. Witness said that Gillies “had a big heaaache coming to him from the spare parts, which witness’s firm could help him to avoid. By putting the material up in smaller lots, many more people would have been interested. The Board would have got better prices for all the vehicles. Cedric Raymond Vincent, recalled, and represented by Mr R. Watterson, handed in. as.' evidence, an invoice book covering 419 Dodges which he acquired from the War Assets Board, and also notes he made on the inspection, valuation, and classification, and a statement showing the gross anticipated return from the vehicle*. At the United States war vehicles sales inquiry, John George Young, deputy chairman of the War Assets Realisation Board, continuing his evidence, said he had probably been influenced by his experience in the Post Office in consenting to the release of Archibald’s. The Postal Department dealt with a great many contracts' which included a deposit. When he left, the Government had never claimed a deposit. Archibald s threat of legal proceedings did not affect his opinion about their release. David Alexander Ewen, chairman of directors of -Sargood, Son and Ewen, and a member of the War Assets Realisation Board, said he felt it was the board’s duty to sell the vehicles to the best advantage. To do that, time must be saved. In thF case, where what might be called a job lot had been bought, a clean, quick sale at a good profit was, he felt when the transaction was being

considered, the best thing the board could do. From the point of view of a businessman he felt that the. release of Archibalds was the wisest course. It had not occurred to him that the way the board dealt with the release of Archibald’s allowed to substitute a new tender for their old tender, saving £30,000 and causing a loss to the Government of £14,000.' Norman Edwin Hutchings, Undersecretary of the Public Works Department, and a member of the board, said the difficulties of making a valuation of the vehicles given by the general manager, satisfied him, although he was still a little unsettled about it, and raised the question at a subsequent meeting. The inquiry was adjourned till 10 a.m. on Monday.