DISPUTE OVER WIRELESS.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 19 March 1938, Page 8

DISPUTE OVER WIRELESS.

CLAIM FOR BALANCE OF COST A dispute over the sale of a wireless set, on which the final payments amounting to £3 7s 3d wore refuted because the set was alleged to be unusually faulty, was aired before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Levin Court yesterday. The plaintiff was D. Dickie and Co., Ltd., represented by Mr. D. P. Todd, and the defendant was J. R. Burke, whose counsel was Mr. N. M. Thomson. Acting on instructions, Mr. Todd informed the Court that the claim w r as for the balance of purchase money for a wireless set sold by the plaintiff company through their local sales agent. The conditions of the hire purchase agreement provided for a deposit of £2 and the balance in instalments of £1 Is 9d per month. Defendant had made his payments fairly regularly until a balance of £4 7s 3d remained. Counsel then presented letters to the company sent in company with payments, these showing that the only complaints made about the set were in regard to a broken valve and a broken condenser. Both these were after the guarantee of 90 days had expired. Defendant then refused to make any further payments, heading that the balance would be compensation for the numerous faults. However, he later forwarded a sum of £l, thus reducing the amount to £3 7s 3d. Mr. Thomson drew attention to the fact that in addition to the 90 days, the hire purchase agreement guaranteed that the set was free from mechanical defects. This was not so as defendant’s association with the set had been one of disappointment in its performance. The first witness for defendant was S. R. Hodges, who at the time of the sale was local agent for the particular set sold to Burke. He said defendant had had a number of repairs executed to the set and these he detailed. Witness considered that the particular set purchased by defendant had been a “dud” because of the large number of defective parts. The approximate cost of the repairs carried out after the expiry of the guarantee was £3' 4s. In reply to Mr, Todd, witness said that plaintiff company were ignorant of the trouble. He had not informed them of it.

Defendant said the set had given trouble practically ever since he had purchased it. His experience had been one of continual breakdowns, repairs having cost him approximately the amount of the’ balance owing to plaintiff company. Mr. Todd pointed out that even after refusing to make any further payments, defendant had forwarded a sum of £l.

Mr. Thomson recalled Hodge’s evidence in regard to the number of defective parts, and held that in view of this the set could not have been free from mechanical defects as stated in the hire purchase agreement. The Magistrate said that any set required a certain amount of care and attention. He thought that by the letters written to plaintiff company by defendant, in which he said he was out of work, showed that his real reason for refusing to meet the balance, was the fact that he did not have the booney. This was borne out by his sending a further £1 after making that refusal. Judgment was then given for plaintiff for £3 7s 3d, with costs I totalling £2 16s. (■ =======