BUYING ON TERMS

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 19 May 1925, Page 5

BUYING ON TERMS

“HIRE PURCHASE” AGREEMENTS

STRONG COMMENTS BY JUDGE.

A SEWING MACHINE DEAL

(BY TELEGRAPH. PRESS ASSOCIATION.) CHRISTCHURCH, May 18.

A by-product, of the credit . system which, tnough it is tne subject of sharp controversy among jurists, is a common instrument m transactions with purchasers who find “terms” preferable to outright buying, was strongly commented upon by Justice Adams when a case involving the transactions a client of a sewing machine firm had had regarding a machine purchased on a ‘mire purchase” agreement came before him at the Supreme Court. The transactions, it was alleged for the defence, had been made by the client on the understanding that the machine was hers, whereas the terms stipulated that until the purchase price was fully paid it belonged to the company. One of the counsel stated that the client was under the impression that the machine was on the same basis as any article obtained on credit, which' became the property of the purchaser, who was liable for the amount and not for the article itself. ’ *

His Honor, addressing the jury on the subject, remarked that a salesman who had given evidence had not shown, that he himself fully understood the agreement, and it was for the jury in those circumstances to decide whether the client could be held responsible,,. He also commented upon the fact that -the terms had not been read over or explained. After going into the law on the subject of such agreements, the form of which hq mentioned had. been decided in 1895, his Honor remarked: ‘‘One feels constrained to say in a case of this kind that when firms a re'dealing with poor people, more or* less ignorant, it is incumbent on those persons selling on those terms to see if the person or' persons with whom they are dealing fully understand the terms, and not take signatures for documents of s<> important a character, at least as far as the persons signing them are concerned, without first seeing that they understand clearly that the property of which they are taking i possession is not their property, but remains the property. of the seller-Until a certain time. It may be a question for the' Legislature to consider,” he concluded, “whether members of the public, unable to protect themselves through want of. education or 'Opportunity, ought not to be protected by law.” ' • -> ■- -