CAR PURCHASE DISPUTED.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18211, 3 October 1922, Page 5

CAR PURCHASE DISPUTED.

CLAIM FOR PAYMENT FAILS.

LIABILITY NOT PROVED.

A claim for specific performance in respect of the purchase of a motor-car for £275 was made in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Herdman, by John Arthur Sanford, of Whangarai (Mr. Johnstone), against F. North, motor garage proprietor, of Royal Oak (Mr. R. M. Moody). After hearing evidence Hb Honor nonsuited plaintiff,, with costs ac cording to scale.

Mr. Johnstone, in outlining the caso for plaintiff, said the car was brought to Auckland for the purpose of disposing of it. Some time after defondant commenced business Mr. C. C. Sanford, as agent for plaintiff, took the car lo defendant's garage, and finally disposed of it to him for the sum mentioned. This was in November, 1920. No money was paid, but Mr. C. C. Sanford advanced his brother money as against the motor-car. peieniant constantly used the car for the purpose of the business, but he did not pay any cash off tho purchase price. In January of this year, when he was asked to pay for the car ? defendant repudiated the purchase, and instead put in a claim for idorage. Counsel said be understood the defence was that there was no sa7e of the car, and that it was purely a question of storage. That was one- point, and the other was that the Sale of Goods Act had not been complied with. Mr. Johnstone said plaintiff did not consider this consistent with the action of the defendant in using the car if it bad been placed in his garage for storage purposes, as was now alleged. Several witnesses gave evidence in support of the plaintiff's case. Mr. Moody said it was just a question whether plaintiff had succeeded in placing before tho Court sufficient evidence to justify the contention that the terms of the Sale of Goods Act had been complied with in connection with the sale of this car. It appeared to have been an unbusinesslike affair. • His Honor: I had better hear the deMr! Moody said the defence was that the car was not purchased by defendant. He certainlv did discuss tho question of buying it in November, 1920, but no business resulted. His Honor said ho could not hold on the evidence that a contract had been proved. , ... Mr. Johnstone said that in these circumstances he would accept a nonsuit. His Honor gave judgment as stated. He said there was a great conflict of evidence, and be could not hold that a -contract had been proved. It was evident that the transaction was a loose one, there beinc no document signed and no money paid over to bind the agreement, even assuming one had been arranged. Ihe onus of proof that-a contract was made was on the plaintiff. In the face of the evidence he was not prepared to hold that defendant was liable.