SALE OF VACUUM CLEANER

Taranaki Daily News, 5 December 1930, Page 3

SALE OF VACUUM CLEANER

PURCHASER'S ALLEGATIONS V SAID HE SIGNED WITHOUT READING. VENDORS GIVEN THE JUDGMENT. “I have every sympathy for people who get jockeyed, into buying things by canvassers, but they should not sign documents they have not read," said Mr. R. AV. Tate, S.M., in New Plymouth yesterday when giving judgment for £lB 19s and £7 for Electrolux, Ltd., on its claim against" G. F. Smith for the balance owing on the purchase of a vacuum cleaner. The magistrate said he had been asked to believe that a document headed “Order Form” had been signed merely to enable the canvasser to leave the machine at the house overnight. If a man signed a document like that without reading it he must accept the responsibility. , Mr. Tate, said ■ he could not accept the suggestion,) that a deposit of £1 was paid simply to make up to the canvasser' for the loss of his commission. It was an action, claiming the balance owing on an agreement for the sale of an Electrolux vacuum cleaner, said Air. R. H. Quilliani, who appeared for Electrolux, Ltd. On May 12 Leo Colin Smith, a. canvasser,' called at the Smith’s ’house and saw Mrs. G. F. Smith. After he had demonstrated the cleaner it was arranged that lie should return in the evening 'to demonstrate for the husband. He did so.. Following a discussion ..of the matter from every angle arid a careful reading of the, contract note the Smiths talked the proposed.'sale over privately for a few minutes and as a result agreed to sign the agreement. It was arranged that Smith should, go to the shop the next day and pay the deposit of £l. He did call but explained to Bell at the shop that he had heard of another machine and preferred not (to take the Electrolux. Bell and the canvasser then further demonstrated their machine to Smith and. he seemed to be convinced, of its qualities. It was agreed then that Bell should go to the house and again show the machine to Ylrs. Smith and that the canvasser was to call, next morning to find out what had been decided by the husband and wife. At that stage, if the Smith’s decided otherwise, the company was content not to go on with the contract, blit the capvasser was naturally pleased Mrs. Smith said they had decided to go on with the purchase and paid £l. '• '■ INSTALMENT NOT PAID; ■; When the first hiontlily instalment became due, however, it was not paid and Smith * said-it would nbt be. Negotiations went on for some time. It was difficult to say just what was the cause of the decision not to go on with the sale, but- a grea.t deal had been made by the other Side of their poverty and of ah alleged representation that if they were nbt satisfied they could return the machine , at the end of the month without any further responsibility. Another allegation: was that the canvasser/had ‘said he would earn a bonus if he completed this sale, and that to oblige him they took the cleanpr arid' paid £1 on the understanding that : at ' the end of a month they would return it without liability. . -The court, said counsel/would appreciate the' reluctance • the company had in bringing ari action of this' kind," but •it felt compelled to' do so if only to protect the reputation of the canvasser, who was alleged to have made inisrepresentatioris.'. ’ ■ ' . ' /When default was made in the monthly instalment the company, in the terms of the agreement signed,; look possession of the machine. The contract still existed and the cleaner was there for delivery When the balance owing was pa,id. The company had no. power to re-sell except' under a further clause ■ dealing ■ with subsequent default. The contract was a very fair one,-said counsel, and two ' warnings at least were given the • It could not be suggested that the: purchaser was ; taken dpwn by" the canvasser.' Both Mr. and Mrs.’Smith had read the contract. The company had hesitated a long time in order .to give. Smith the opportunity to Comply with tjje terms of the contract. Whatever the pbsitiorij '- the company felt'it; had a duty to sue because the : honour of its canvasser had been attacked and misrepresentation alleged.. Cross-examined by Mr. S.- F. Grayling, for ..the' defence, Li C. Smith, the salesman, said Mrs. G. F. Smith had not told .him she did' not want the cleaner because’ she 'had no'-carpets in ’the house. She seemed quite keen ■'about the-ma-chine. He did -not tell her that practically everyone in Wallace'Place had an Electrolux. “What I did say,” he said, “was that/‘no woman could afford to do without- one.’ And I-Relieve it now." “Well,” said Mr. Grayling, “I am afraid a great many of them do.” Witness denied having asked permission to. leave the machine there overnight to “put him right with' the firm.” “Do you deny you offered Mrs. Smith £1 for every machine you sold on her recommendation?” asked .Mr.. Grayling. “Yes, -1 do. ' I .could, not afford to make, such an offer.” , : i EVIDENCE OF MANAGER. David Bell, Electrolux manager at /Palmerston North and formerly manager at Xew Plymouth, confirmed what counsel had said, concerning his pi.rt in the matter. He went to see Smith several times .at his place of. work ar J told him he had never -before had any trouble over the sale of a machine. . “Is that a. fact?” asked Mr. Quilliam. “You have, never had a dispute over a sale?’’ - - ‘‘Yes. I have never had a sale dis- . puted.” Smith - seemed to take up a “pigattitude,” continued Bell. "I could . afford it all right," he said on one occasion, “but I am not going to.” It was only ■ after two or three interviews that Smith began to suggest that the canvasser had said they could send the machine back after a month., The took possession of tne, machine after.: the second instalment had become due. It was now in the . showroom for .return . to the Smiths when ,the. balance owing was paid. Under the terms of the agreement the company hound to keep the machine, for the Smiths, unless the .greement were .cancelled under the clause entitling the vendor to cancel it if default were made for two monthly payments. A non-suit was for by Mr. Grayling on the ground that there was no evidence of the incorporation of the company. “That is the first time I have heard that poiqt raised for 20 years,” said Mr. Quilliani. ■ > The - magistrate said that if such a thing were necessary he would give Mr. Quiiliam the opportunity of calling evidence of proof. Mr. Grayling said he did not think that at that stage such evidence could be allowed. “It simply amounts to this,” said-Mr. Quilliam, “if the point is persisted with

I will ask for-an adjournment in order to obtain a certificate of incorporation from YVellirigton.” Mr. Tate pointed out that an adjournment would mean an addition .to the Costs;' ‘ .. -, *■ -■ / Mr. Grayling said he regretted having to take the point, but he thought it would be shown from the. evidence that theSe people had been misled, by the canvasser. Mr. Quilliam: You are not now discussing the evidence. • The magistrate said Mr. Quilliam would have to have the opportunity of proving incorporation. ‘The defence would be based on misrepresentation, said Mr. Grayling in opening his case. G. F. Smith, he said, was a young married man with four children, the oldest a girl aged 10, and the youngest a baby of 'l9 months THE DEFENDANT’S STORY. Mrs. Smith said about the beginning of the year a woman called on her at Vogeltown. She was told that they, had no carpets and in any case could not afford to buy a cleaner. Later they moved to Westowri. ' The woman called again and was told they had just moved. “It would be very handy,’’ she said. Mrs. Smith replied that the place was clean. The woman made an appointment and Smith, the canvasser came to give a demonstration. Mrs. Smith said she told him. she could-not afford it, that they did not want it and that -she did not believe in “hire-purchase,” He said it was not a “hire-purchase'.” He came back that night and stayed till nearly eleven giving' a ' demonstration. Smith, amongst other things, told them he could not leave the machine at a house without an agreement being signed, also something about a. bonus on the sale for him, .

Her husband looked-over the agreement while the machine was beingrpacked. . Then lie told the canvasser he would sign it to put the.canvasser right with his firm as they could return the machine at t'he end of the month. The canvasser said “Yes.” ■

'Bell subsequently - came to oee her, • urging her to buy; She said she could not . possibly ; afford the cleaner. Bell ■ told, her' it would be hard on the canvasser'if he lost his commission through them not going- on with the sale. Eventually she agreed to pay the canvasser £1 on condition he took the machine laway at: the end of the month and they had nothing more to do with the matter. .-“That is very good of you/! lie said. “It is very good of you to think of .me. You may- be able to transfer the- machine.” She said they might, but if not he must take it away .He. fold her he would give her £1 for any machine sold on her recommendation,-, but .she, said she did' not want that as lohg'.as he would take the cleaner away. ( Qn paying him £1 he advised her .-.to use; t'he machine in . the meantime, to gether money's worth out of it; .'■ . ' > :.'/ ■<■ -"•:/-■■/ //'

.'When Smith next called she asked' him < if. he had come for the machine. “No,” he said. “But that is what . I paid!you £1 for," she replied. Smith did no.t Beeni to know what, to say. He said something about him nop. having going into the. matter blindfolded. “No,” she replied, “but you. let ue go .in blindfolded.” \ “You say .yoii- never .intended to purchase the machine ?” said Mr;: Quilliam. “Yes.” .- ■■ “Then why did ypu let the canvasser stay at your house from about .7.30 till nearly 11 o’clock?” ’ • /; ./• “Soft-heartcdriese,. I suppose.” ;; ■> “Is that all?” . . - “TALKED A' GOOD DEAL.”:. “He talked a good deal and we could not get rid of. him. • His arguments were'rather convincing.” , - . “Do you mean' to say f your husband was noU'man enough to put him out?’’ “If I had asked him.” . \ . Smith, the defendant, said he told the canvasser he. did not believe in “hirepurchase”'and that they .never bought anything unless, ' .they could pay - cash. Witness only partly read the agreement. It was very late. . The canvasser.; said-: he would -have to take, the. machine away. It . was . against ’ the rules to leave one without having’an. agreement signed/ When x asked, ,he said that if the agreement whre- signed it: would not bind them to a purchase. He had told his wife that if she thought •fit would stop the canvasser troubling her to give him £l. After detailing- other, interviews .regarding; the matter witness said Bell, called .on him several times at . the‘ office. /Bell said ho knew. he could, afford to buy it, but witness saidl his .wife was the one who had to, make the money go. round. To:Mr.. Quilliam: When he, knew the canvasser, was coming, at night to give him -a, .demonstration both he and his wife knew they could not afford to buy it. ■ . • .

“Four hours was a long time for him to be there?” said Mr. Quilliani. :

“It did seem to us he was there a long .time/’ . . ' ;;.'/'.. ../ .■: “Well, why didn’t you turn him out?” “You can’t be rude to people,in your own house.”

- They talked about many matters that night. Witness ■ had only "slipped through” the agreement form when' it vvas handed to him, because it would have been rude of him not to make some show of reading it. It was too involved to puzzle out at 11 o'clock at night. In signing it lie thought he was doing the canvasser a good, turn, but not that he would have to buy the machine. ’ ’ ’ ’

“You understood your wife had decided to, buy the machine?”-said, counsel later on. '■/ -i / No. She said she cbulcj not afford it.”

“Arid vet you kept going back to think it oyer,’’ observed counsel. ■;

At the conclusion of the case the magistrate commented on the fact that Smith had said he signed the order form without realising'its full purport. It was an agreement to purchase. “There is the machine/’ said Mr. Tate. “It is yours. I have no doubt you will be able' to make satisfactory arrangements with them ,to settle the matter.” ■

. Regarding the evidence of. incorporation, Mr. Quilliam said he was acting as' agent in this .matter and hie principals had. not forwarded him the proof, never for a moment realising that such a point Vrould be raised/ He considered the. defence should abaridon the point. : The magistrate: They would be wise. Otherwise, continued Mr. Quilliani, he would have to* ask for an adjournment. He . was not taking any risks over the matter for, as .he said before, life company had mainly brought the action because of, the reflection on its salesman’s reputation. In view of the allegations of misrepresentation counsel felt; he could describe’ the non-suit point as more than a technicality—as’ trickery. “Oh; I object to that,” said Mr. Grayling. “That is not a fair thing to say.’’ Mr. Quilliam said that in view of the allegations the other, side had taken a mean advantage by raising such a technicality. Mr..Grayling agreed to withdraw liis point. ' ".. ‘ ..