SEIZURE OF GOODS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22435, 3 June 1936, Page 12

SEIZURE OF GOODS

HIRE PURCHASE SALES NO RIGHT OF ENTRY "EXTBAOKDINARY" CLAUSE DELETION RECOMMENDED [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] PALMERSTON NORTH, Tuesday The rights of firms to seize goods bought under hire purchase agreements when payments were not kept up were commented upon by Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., during the hearing in the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court today of a civil action for damages for assault. Myrtle Irwin said in evidence that her husband bought a radio set and paid off £29, leaving £5 owing. A salesman called to collect the set, but she refused him admission. The salesman told her he had the right to break in the doors and windows to get the wireless, according to the terms of the purchasing agreement. Witness said she dared the salesman to enter, whereupon he tried to push his way in, catching hold of her arms. Then her husband came on the scene and the salesman desisted and finally left. The incident had greatly upset her and retarded her recovery from a nervous breakdown. This evidence was corroborated, but defendant denied being closer to Mrs. Irwin than 2ft. The magistrate perused the hire purchase agreement, and said no Court would uphold a "break open" clause Rucb as the agreement contained, in spite of the fact that counsel said it was prominent in many agreements of the kind. The magistrate advised that the words be deleted, as the clause was wide enough to cover breaking into someone else's house to recover goods, for which anyone would get gaol. Defendant had not asked if the husband were home, said Mr. Stout, but had demanded the wireless set, quoting the extraordinary provision of theP agreement that he could enter the premises at any time. A salesman should not bully a wife in the absence of her husband. If the firm wanted to recover the balance due it should have sued. Further, anyone going to recover goods should have a letter from tho firm, otherwise any thief could operate. Also, no firm had a right to seize anything practically paid for, with the only moneys owing being for interest and repairs. Even a threat to enter premises was an assault when told not to enter. Defendant was ordered to pay £3.