DEALINGS IN MOTOR-CARS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20563, 14 May 1930, Page 14

DEALINGS IN MOTOR-CARS.

CLAIM AFTER COLLISION.

AN INVOLVED TRANSACTION

[by telegraph.—own correspondent.] NEW PLYMOUTH, Tuesday.

Unusual circumstances wore disclosed in a case arising out of a collision between two cars, which was heard at Stratford yesterday, in which Alice M. Pitt, of Stratford, sued Ernest and A. Harper for £45 for damages to her car, and £5 general damages. Tho action was commenced in the Stratford Court on April 7, when the case for plaintiff was concluded. Yesterday tho defendants' side of the case was dealt with. Mr. 11. W. Tate, 5.M.., reserved his decision.

At tho previous sitting Mrs. Pitt said she purchased a new car on June 12, 1929, for £550 cash. As tho Result of tho collision with defendant's car on August 6, it was damaged to a certain extent. Sho obtained two estimates for repairing the car, each for £45. Instead of having the car repaired, witness then purchased another car of ti c same make on September 21, and handed over the damaged car, for which she was allowed £SOO on the -total price of £550. She. paid the remaining £SO in cash. For defendants, Mr. A. A. Stewart quoted various car dealings connected with the trading-in of Mrs Pitt's damaged car lor a now ear. The firm in question had made a profit of £2BO on those deals, and was in a very favourable position to allow Mrs. I'itt a big price on tho trade-in. Furthermore, the statement of claim asked the Court to admit tho absurdity that a second-hand car was as valuable as a new one. In being allowed £SOO as tho trade-in price of the damaged car, Mrs. Pitt had received the full market value of the car, prior to the accident. Slw had already been compensated by the motor firm, and was not entitled legally to double compensation, or to make a profit on the transaction. If Mrs. Pitt had received compensation, tho motor firm had paid it, but in view of the profit which that firm had made on the other deals connected with tho selling of new cars to Mrs. Pitt, it had been in a position to pay it, and not feel the j loss. "I base my defenco on flic contention that Mrs. Pitt has suffered no loss, and that slip, connot expect double compensation," Mr. Stewart said. Frank M. Cordery, manager of the j motor firm, said a new cur which hail been driven for 200 miles by its purchaser was a second-hand vehicle, and its value would liavo depreciated at, least by 10 per cent., or £55 on a £550 car. I'or plaintiff, .Mr. A. Coleman said there was no such thing as a general market value for a used ear. Witnesses for the defence bad admitted that circumstances altered cases. What it, came to was that there was a motor salesman's.value,, which altered according to circumstances. The fact that the salesman had known he could dispose of Mrs. Pitt's car, when he offered to take it in at £SOO, was one of those exigencies by which tho value of second-hand cars were controlled. The magistrate reserved his decision.