HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 142, 20 May 1925, Page 12

HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM.

REMARKS BY A JUDGE.

Per Presw Association,

CHIRSTCHURCH, May 18

A by-product of the credit system, which, though it is the subject of sharp controversy amongst jurists, is a common instrument in transactions with purchasers who find “terms” preferable to outright buying, was strongly commented upon by Mr Justice Adams, when a case involving transactions a client of a sewing machine firm had had regarding a machine purchased on a “hire purchase” agreement came before him in 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 Honour, addressing the jury on the subject, remarked that a salesman who had given evidence had not sliolvn that lie himself fully understood the agreeemnt, and it was for the jury to decide whether the client in those circumstances could he held responsible. He also commented upon the fact that the terms had not been lead over or explained. After going into the law on the subject of such agreements, the form of which, lie mentioned, had been decided in 1895. His Honour remarked:—“One feels constrained to say in a case of this kind that when firms are 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 so 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 possession is not their property, hut remains the property of the seller until a certain time. It may he a question for the Legislature to consider whether-,members of the public unable to protect themselves, through want of education or opportunity, ought not to he protected by law.”