SEIZURE OF GOODS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXVI, Issue 144, 3 June 1936, Page 8

SEIZURE OF GOODS

Magistrate Questions Clause in Hire Purchase

BUYERS’ RIGHTS By Telegraph—Press Association PALMERSTON N., June 2. Interesting comment on the rights of Anns to seize goods bought under hire purchase when the payments are not kept up was made by Mr J. L, Stout, S.M., during the hearing of a civil action for damages for assault. A married woman, Myrtle Irwin, gave evidence that her husband bought a radio and paid off £29, leaving £5 owing. A salesman called to collect the set, but she refused him admission. The salesman told her he had the right to break in doors and windows to get the wireless, according to the terms of the purchasing agreement: She dared him to enter, whereupon the salesman tried to push his way in, catching hold of her arms. Then her husband came on the scene and the salesman desisted and finally left. The incident greatly upset her, retarding her recovery from a nervous breakdown.

This evidence was corroborated, but the defendant denied being closer than two feet from Mrs Irwin.

The Magistrate perused the hire purchase agreement and then stated that no Court would uphold a break-open clause such as the agreement contained, despite the fact that counsel stated it was prominent in many agreements of the kind.

The Magistrate advised that the words had better be deleted, as the clause was wide enough to cover a breaking into someone else’s house to recover goods, for which anyone would get gaol.

The defendant, pointed’ out the Magistrate, had not asked if'the husband was at home but demanded the wireless, quoting the extraordinary provision of the agreement—that he could enter the premises any time. The salesman should not bully a wife in the absence of a husband. If the firm wanted to recover the balance due they should have sued.

Further; anyone going to recover goods should have a letter from his firm, otherwise any thief could operate. In addition no firm had the right to seize anything practically paid for, the only moneys owing being for interest and repairs. Even a threat to enter premises was an assault when one had been told not to. The defendant was mulcted £3.