MONEY AND MOTORS

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 750, 24 August 1929, Page 1

MONEY AND MOTORS

Dispute Over Hire-Purchase i EVIDENCE CONFLICTS IN COURT CLAIM CONFLICTING evidence marked the hearing of a claim begun at the Magistrate’s Court on Thursday by the Automobile Finance Coy., Ltd., against Todd Motors (Auckland), Ltd. The case is of particular interest to motor-trading firms involving at least one unusual point in regard to hire-pur-chase agreements. After hearing the evidence Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., reserved his decision yesterday.

‘‘There is no question of profit in this action,” said Mr. L. B. Haynes for the Finance Company. ‘‘We are bringing the case merely to teach the man Williams a lesson.” Plaintiff company claimed the delivery of a motor-car and the payment of £2 damages for wrongful detention or alternatively, the sum of £ 85, the value of the car, and the £2 damages. Mr. A. J. Goldstine and Mr. F. Li. G. West appeared for the Todd Motor Company. According to the plaintiff’s evidence, given before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., one Williams had purchased a motorcar from Edgar Pearce, of Khyber Pass, and the deal had been financed by the plaintiffs. Williams had handed that car in for £75 and bought another, leaving a balance of £lO9, including interest and other charges which were to be paid off by monthly payments of £2 a month for the first four months, and £ 8 a month from then on until £3O was owing when the lump sum was to be paid. Williams had not paid on due dates but his payments had always been made. He was £l6 12s 6d in arrears when he had seen Mr. Fortune, secretary of the Automobile Finance Company, and said that he was thinking of getting a new car and trading in the machine he was then using. Mr. Fortune had said that he thought he could help Williams if he purchased the car from a firm to which he would send him. He was also willing to let £8 12s 6d of the £l6 12s 6d stand over for 10 days or so. CAR FROM WELLINGTON

had refused to hand it over and tendered the man a cheque, which he would not take. NON-SUIT MOVED This evidence closed the plaintiff’s case and Mr. West moved for a nonsuit on the grounds that Todds had acquired an interest in the car before the hire-purchase agreement had been terminated by the Automobile Finance Company. Counsel said that the plaintiff could recover only £54 12s 6d, an amount which had been paid into court by defendant and which Todds had been willing to pay : on Williams’s behalf. The magistrate was of the opinion that the question to be decided was whether the hire-purchase agreement had been terminated by plaintiff before the Todd Motor Company had acquired an interest in the old car. He would prefer to hear evidence for the defence. Three representatives of defendant company, including Hoyes, stared that the deal %rith Williams’s car had been effected on Friday night. The agreement had been signed on Saturday morning some time before the arrival of the Finance Company’s representative, and the new car taken by Williams. Williams had explained his position in regard to the Finance Company, and it had been arranged, as was usual in such cases, that Todds should obtain a statement from the company and pay the amount’ owing. Letters were produced by the defence showing that this procedure had been followed in previous deals between the two companies. Plaintiff’s representative, who had called to seize the car, had been twice asked for a statement and told that any amount owing would be paid. On Monday Mr. Hoyes had again communicated with the Finance Company, asking for a statement, but had then been told by the secretary that the affair was out of his hands. Representatives of the Finance Company had then called demanding the car, which Todds had refused to hand over. Williams’s side of his dealings with the Finance Company differed in a few particulars from the story told by plaintiffs. He claimed that he had always been regular in his payments, but that the collector, who was a personal friend of his, had not always called on the due dates. Williams denied that he had agreed with the manager of the garage to which Fortune had sent him that he would take the car from Wellington. Nor had he gone and told Fortune that the deal was finalised. He had come to an agreement with the Todd Company, and told a member of his staff to ring the other garage and say that the car from Wellington was no longer wanted. The next thing witness knew was when he found a notice terminating his agreement with the Finance Company left at his house. When he had taken the new car from Todds he had explained fully his arrangement with the Finance Company. ; Witness explained that if the court gave plaintiff company possession of the car it would meap that he would lose £lO4 allowed him by Todds on the trade-in, less £54 12s owing to the Automobile Finance Company. The magistrate made no comment before reserving his decision.

Mr. Fortune had sent Williams to a certain city garage. He admitted that his company was to receive £lO commission for introducing Williams. The car Williams had wanted was not in stock but the garage proprietor had said that he would try and get it in Auckland and that Williams had better return on the following day. The man had done so, but was told that it had been impossible to get the car and that they would have to send to Wellington which would take about two weeks. According to the manager of the garage, Williams had verbally agreed to take the car from Wellington. It had been purely a verbal agreement which was not usual, but had seemed all right to witness as Williams had been sent by the Automobile Finance Company. Williams had then gone to Todd Motor Company and agreed to purchase a car of a different make and trade in his old car there. Plaintiff's evidence further alleged that a ’phone call had been received at the garage where Williams had first gone cancelling the order for the car from Wellington. This information had been sent on to the Automobile Finance Company. Fortune had said that h© would terminate the hire purchase agreement and sent one of his employees to Williams’s home trb cake possession of the car. This man had seen a new car standing outside the gat© and went to Todds, who were the agents for that make of car. and discovered that Williams had traded his old car in that morning. That was on Saturday at 1 p.m. when the manager had gone and the employees of Todd Motors were all preparing to leave. Todds had refused to give up the -car, and the man had rung die Automobile Finance Company. Fortune had told him to leave the affair over until Monday. Later on Saturday, the employee had received instructions from Fortune to go back to Todds and seize the car. He had gone out to Williams about 3.30 p.m. and put the notice terminating the hire-pur-chase agreement under the door. had then gone to Todds and left a notice there, but had not taken the car. On Monday he had returned to Todds asking for possession of the car. Mr. Hoyes, the sales manager,