SALE OF MOTOR CAR

Hawera Star, Volume L, 29 November 1930, Page 2

SALE OF MOTOR CAR

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. PARTIES REACH SETTLEMENT. WITHDRAWAL OF ALLEGATIONS. 'J'he hearing of the action in the New Plymouth Supreme Court yesterday afternoon in which Mrs. Mary Catherine Mellow (Mr. A. Chrystal) proceeded against the Farmers’ Co-op Society (Mr A. K. North) for £2OO damages arising out of the Bale of a motor car, which she alleged! had been used and not new as she had understood, came to an abrupt conclusion after the lunchean adjournment when it was announced that a satisfactory settlement had been reached. Messrs. R. El. Outhbertson and Co. (Mr. A. It. Brodie) and Wright Stephenson and Co. (Mr. A. A. Bennett). were joined as third and fourth parties in the matter. In expressing his pleasure that a settlement had been arrived at, His Honour (Sir Michael Myers) said that the case was one in which a settlement ought to have been made. Plaintiff had charged fraud against the defendants and could not possibly have suc-i ceeded. and in no way could the -sale be regarded as having been fraudulent or improper. Plaintiff also could not succeed on the main course of the action which was limited to a claim for damages for breach of warranty: He did not blame any of the parties for defending the action, but lie thought it could have been settled: as it had been now if the parties had met. Early in the 'proceedings Mr. Chrystal said that the defendant company had acted honestly and honourably throughout the transaction and at Mr. North’s suggestion unreservedly withdrew the allegation Ctf fraud in the pleadings. 1 . • • • EVIDENCE of sale. Reginald M. Rickard, superintendent of the motor department of the Farmers’ Co-op., said that a car depreciated as soon as it was used. Cars which had been used as demonstration cars were sold at a discount in the trade. To His Honour: By that he meant a car which) had been used for demonstratiug for a sal© of a car of a lik© kind. : . .. Replying to Mr. Chrystal, lie said that demonstration cars were usually easier to sell than' second-hand cars, as they had usually been carefully handled, and they carried a new car guarantee. He isaid that had he known sit the time he would have told Mrs. Mellow that the car had been repainted. She was- 'subssoiieirttly told! of that . To His Honour: Cars were often repainted before sale to suit the taste of a customer. It was not customary to repaint new cars, or to sell repainted cars as new cars. Continuing to Mr. Chrystal, the witness said his firm purchased the car as a new one and had paid the full price of a new car. , To His Honour: In this particular instance, if he had been purchasing this car lie would have been prepared to pay full new-car price for it. The defects referred to were really only minor matters. If the hood had been repaired in New Zealand it would affect the question of the car being regarded as a new one; and if he had thought in his] mind that the hood had been repaired lie would not have accepted it as a new Answering Mr. North he said that the plaintiff had previously purchased a car which she found was too heavy, and witness had taken it back and held it for some time until he found a purchaser. This was done about February 28, and he had then effected the deal for the lighter car which was the subject of this action. His company had made a Joss of £35 on the Caltborpe car which they took back. InJ view of the fact "that she was taking another car Mrs. Mellow was released from her obligation in respect of the purI chase of the first. In selling a car lie always explained to a purchaser the difference between what his firm called their 90 days’ free service and the warranty. The latter was a guarantee for one vear against any defect in material cr faulty workmanship in construction. The free service related to minor adjustments that might he necessary. When Mrs. Mellow had first complained about this particular car her real objection was to the colour of the paint work and some small defects. Witness himself did not think the paint work was really had, but he offered on certain conditions to have the car iepainted. On the first occasion he was not aware that the car had then been repainted, hut he was on the second occasion, about* March 28. H© na.tura.lly wanted to do t!ie_ best lie could for a valued client of liis firm, and that was whv he wfp'te to Cuthbertson and Co:, as he did. Knowing then that the car had been repainted he became suspicious of the car, and looking at it lie felt that she had some cause for grievance.

“A PALTRY THING.”

His Honour interjected to remark that the court had the spectacle of three business firms spending their money in litigation over a paltry thing which reasonable people ought to have been able to settle. Supposing -plaintiff had been entitled to £SO or £6O it was going to cost three or four times that. He did not. however, say that it affected the legal position. Mr. North stated that certain offers had been made, hut there had been allegations against the honour of . defeiuTauts. which had had to be defendContinuing liis evidence, witness said tliat cars which had been in a showroom for six months were frequently sold as new cars. IF they got soiled thev were sometimes sold at a. discount. A car of an unusual modefi sometimes hung for a time, and this particular car was such a model. To Mr. Brodie: When he first saw the car his suspicions were not m the least aroused. In the particular type of seat of this car, it was possible that the sagging of the driver ,s seat could be caused on the journey from ’Wellington to Hawera. All the minor detects spoken of except the painting, could have been caused in the course of ordinary use between the beginning of March and the end of the month when ie saw the car for Uw second tune Replying to Air. Bennett lie said that if n, car had been demonstrated once to possible purchaser, lie would have no hesitation in selling such a car to that

purchaser as a new car. Also lie would also sell a car which had, under the circumstances in this cns'e, been repainted,', as a new car. His Honour: AVould l you sell a repainted car as a new one? AVitness: Y es. His Honour: Then I wouldn’t if I were in business ;and 1 don’t think it would be right to do -so. AYitness: If it was re-painted within a. day or two of being unpacked. His Honour; I think a new car is one iu the condition in which it comes out of the factory. I have got to decide in this case what a new car is. Richard B. Ford, motor engineer, of Eltham. said he 'had examined the car in question in May and again in November, and found very little difference in its condition between those dates. He described what his examination had revealed, and said some >f the work appeared' to have been repainted over dust. .Some of the work on the engine he described as being oossibly for the effect of giving a used car a new car performance. His Honour, as requested, adjourned the action until the next session to allow the settlement to he effected.