SALE OF MOTOR-CAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21117, 26 February 1932, Page 13

SALE OF MOTOR-CAR.

CLAIM AGAINST DEALER.

ALLEGATION OF CONVERSION. WOMAN'S UNSUCCESSFUL SUIT. A claim for damages arising from the alleged wrongful sale of a motor-car was brought in the Supreme Court yesterday by Betty Minns, of Auckland, against Premier Motors, Limited, of Auckland. Mr. Justice Herdnian presided. Plaintiff's claim set out that in pctober, 1930, she bought from defendant a coupe motor-car, the sale being financed through General Motors Acceptance Corporation, of the United States, the total price of the car being £429, of which plaintiff was allowed £l7B, being the trade-in allowance on another car. The balance of £251 was payable by monthly instalments of £9, tho first instalment being payable on November 10. 1930. In May, 1931, plaintiff took the coupe car to defendant to enable him to sell it oil her behalf, which defendant agreed to do. Defendant, so plaintiff stated, intimated to plaintiff that there would bo no need to pay the monthly instalments to the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, but, that defendant would pay them and deduct any payments out of the proceeds of the sale. There were no arrears of instalments at tho time, and neither the corporation nor defendant made any demand upon plaintiff for any such instalments. Defendant Sells Oar.

In July, 1931, plaintiff intimated to defendant her desire to pay off the entire balance, and on defendant being unable to state accurately the amount required, plaintiff communicated with tho corporation at Wellington and was notified that £176 was owing. Plaintiff then communicated with defendant, and was told that defendant had paid the balance to the corporation, had taken an assignment of the corporation contract over the car and had sold the car under an alleged right of seizure arising under the contract. Plaintiff received no demand to pay the instalments for Juno and July, 1931, bocause of the arrangement made with defendant that defendant would pay them and deduct the payments from tho proceeds of the sale. She received no notice of intention to seize, and was not consulted in any way over the salo of the car. It was claimed that defendant was guilty of conversion and of a broach of duty as plaintiff's agent, by wrongfully selling the car. Plaintiff claimed, therefore. to recover from defendant £9B, her equity in the car, as damages for conversion of the vehicle. Mileage of the Car. Plaintiff said she did not bother about paying instalments after April as she was told by -Mr. H. Griffiths, of Premier Motors, not to bother about them. It was decided to sell the car second-hand for £285. Griffiths had pointed out to her that, to facilitate the sale, the mileage indicator had been put back. His Honor: Did they really do that? Counsel for plaintiff said in other cases the mileage indicator was never taken as a guide. . His Honor: I should think not if t.ney do that sort of thing. Plaintiff said she was told by Griffiths that the car was sold for £205. Griffiths had made two payments on her account, but made no request to her for the amount. He told her that he might be able to get the car back for her, or if she wished she could have any car in the garage for £250. She questioned his ab:litv to get the car back if he had sold it. , , ■ ,-rr 1 To counsel for defendant, plaintiff said she had not received any demands for instalments. . Counsel for plaintiff said his client had changed her address, so it might be said she had received no demand. To counsel for defendant, plaintiff said she did not write a certain letter produced Griffiths dictated the letter and her husband signed it. She expected to get £285 for the car. Loss Right Through Deal.

His Honor, after reading a letter from plaintiff to General Motors Acceptance Corporation, asked plaintiff why. if she wanted the car back, she did not accept it. Witness said she did not see now Griffiths could get it back if he had sold it. . , „ . Counsel for defendant said Griffiths would have been only too glad to receive the instalments from plaintiff and give the car back to her. . William James Minns, husband of plaintiff, said lie saw Griffiths, who said nothing about seizing tho car. Griffiths said that if witness paid two instalments he could take the car away. The instalments were not demanded. Horace Griffiths, managing-director of the defendant company, said the company had lost right through the deal Mrs. Minns came to see him in Apr 1, 1931, and asked him to sell the car. He told her about the payments and said her instalments must be kept up. He told her husband ho was going to take over the car. When he told Mrs. Minns she was welcome to have the car back she said she did not want it. Minns had said the mileage indicator had better be put back. Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff had suffered no damage. The price of £205, for which the car was sold was the full market value. _lf any damage were sustained by plaintirf, then the whole of it was caused through her refusing to take back the car when it was offered her. His Honor said he did not think plaintaff had made out a case. Judgment would he for tho defendant, the parties to pay their own costs.