SALE OF MOTOR-CAR

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1938, Page 12

SALE OF MOTOR-CAR

answer to charge

defence case heard ownership and mileage Answering a charge of false representation concerning the sale of a car to Mrs. Clara A. Harrison, Lepperton, Edward Cawthray, motor dealer, presented his defence yesterday to a claim for £215 damages heard before Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., at New Plymouth. He was supported by his salesman, Williaxn Henry Harle, in a denial that either of them had misled the purchaser or her husband respecting the total mileage of the car or the number of its previous owners. At the conclusion of evidence for the defence late last night the magistrate reserved his decision. When the court resumed yesterday morning evidence was given by Albert J. Harrison, husband of the plaintiff. Harle, the salesman, had said the car had only one owner, Page, "manager of Commuhity Stores," witness said. Subsequently Harle told witness' son that the speedometer reading was the true mileage, and that there had been only one previous owner. After describing other aspects of the negotiations witness said they took the car on the understanding that it had had only one previous owner and that the total mileage shown on the speedometer was correct. Witness later complained to Cawthray, who agreed to give him a written mechanical guarantee. ... Trouble with Starting. Starting was still difficult, said Harrison. It received garage attention several times. Cawthray showed witness how to start it by using the "choke." That was the first time he knew what the "choke" was for. Later the car developed battery trouble and was put in a garage. Mr. L. M. Moss, for the defence, recalled that R. J. Page had lost or rtiislaid the original certificate. It was Page who got the duplicate certificate, not Cawthray's Motors. Witness did not know that Cawthray's Motors had nothing to do with the alteration of the speedometer. Counsel pointed out that Page' had said the speedometer went out of order when he had the car. When he had it fixed it was altered back to zero. Witness admitted that apart from starting, the car ran all right. He had never been charged anything for work on the car done by Cawthray's Motors. Any work done on the car by other garages had been done for Cawthray's Motors, who had paid for it. Witness denied that at his last interview he told Cawthray that he wanted another make of car. He did not ask Cawthray for the registration paper because he did not think he could get it until the car was paid for. He denied that Cawthray showed him the papers. In spite of the trouble about the starting of the car everything Was quite friendly between his family and the Cawthrays until May, 1938. Some months before then he had invited Mr. and Mrs. Cawthray to the farm. Gave Son Old Cars. He admitted Cawthray gave witness' son three old cars for use of engine parts in the construction of a saw-bench. Witness told his son and Cawthray's son the farm was being. made "a dump for old cars." To Mr. Quilliam he said he first saw a solicitor about the matter on. May 20. Roy Henry Holmes, postal offteer, produced papers connected with the registration, re-licenaing and transfers of the Rover car in dlspute. Referring to an application by Page for a duplicate certificate On August 25, 1938, he said a clerical error was responsible for it appearing that Page was the original owner. He thought it possible he had copied the information on the application for a duplicate license instead of that on the original record card. Cross-rexamined, Holmes said it was news to him that at one time many certificates were issued without containing the name of the original owner. As far as he was concerned there had always been the same degree of strictness in the department about such matters. Ivan G. Parker, head salesman for L. H. Johnson Motors, Ltd., said his firm allowed the Harrisons £60 for the Rover on a trade-in. In his opinion that was the full market value in May, 1938. The car was resold. Recajled, Robert J. Page, previous owner of the Rover car, told Mr. Moss he had filled in and signed the application to the post offlce for a duplicate certificate of registrationJ It was during his two years' ownership of the car that the speedometer broke down and was taken out by Dominion Motors and sent away for repair. No Grounds for AUegation. As it stood at - present, even on the plaintiff's own evidence, the caSe did not ju$tify a charge of fraudulent representation, said Mr. Moss in opening the defence. It was unfortunate when such a serious and unfounded charge was made against a business man, because a great deal of harm was done that could not be caught up. It was submitted that unless fraud could be shown the case fell to the ground. The claim for £215 was greatly exaggerated. That meant that Mrs. Harrison wanted to keep the car for to months for £60, which it must be conceded was Pretty cheap. There was not a word of complaint about Johnson Motors taking the car for £60, and counsel contencfcd that if anyone was responsible for damages Johnson Motors should pay £100. Neither Cawthray nor his salesman, Harle, had made any fraudulent representations to the Harrisons. Cawthray and Harle were defending the action, knowing the damage done by the publicity given the charge. Counsel contended that the alternative grounds of the claim, failure of consideration and breach of warranty, could not stand in law. It was submitted no legal warranty was. given the Harrisons. Counsel pointed out that Mrs. Harrison signed a hire-purchase agreement for the car on November 20, 1936, almost three months after acquiring the car, without complaint. Non-suit Point. Mr. Moss raised a non-suit point, contending there was no proof of fraud or misrepresentation. Even if damages were proved, her claim was for general damages, and in a case of this sort special damages had to be proved. Cawthray did not come into the matter until after his salesman had completed the negotiations • for the sale, said Mr. Moss. Neither he nor his salesman made any misrepresentation to the Harrisons regarding mileage or names of previous owners. Cawthray did not have the speedometer repaired or altered. nor did he have anything to do with the issue of the duplicate certificate. The Harrisons were parfectly friendly with Cawthray until after they were in touch with opposition salesmen. Giving evidence, Cawthray said his first connection with the sale to the Harrisons was when Harle brought the sale note to him. He went out to Lepperton in the afternoon. He had no idea of the speedometer mileage until 20 months afterwards, when he heard 't from Harrison himself. He could not

understand any salesman making representations about the 6000 miles speedometer reading, as Harle was alleged to have dorie. Witness himself certamly never had made any representations regarding mileage or previous ownership. No Reference Made. Witness then , described his visit to the Harrisons' -farm for the purpose of valuing Ihe truck to be traded in. No reference was made to the speedometer mileage of the car or to the number st owners of the car. He knew it had had more than one owner, and if he had been asked he would have told the Harrisons. If he had known then that the mileage registered was just over 6000 he would hgve been suspicious that there was something wrong with the speedometer. He bought .it from the Highways Transport and sold it to Page, and it was while Page owned the car that the wheels and tyres were ehanged. No one in his firm had anything to do with obtaining the duplicate registration certificate. It was usual under a hire-purchase agreement for the vendor to hold such papers until a car was paid for. He recollected showing Mrs. Harrison the certificate in May, 1937, but he could not say when it was handed to her.. Questioned by Mr. Quilliam, Cawthray' said that shortly after the last interview with the Harrisons he received a letter from the Harrisops' solicitor charging him with false representations. He placed the matter in the hands of his solicitors. He did not recollect telling Mr. Quilliam over the telephone that he was going into the matter with Harle. Charges False. He told his solicitor the charges were false, but he could not explain why his solicitor in his letter to Mr. Quilliam Had not said the charges were false. He could not say whether the price of £275 was assessed by Harle or Page. He could not remember Harle tellirig him that for a fortnight witness would have the right to sell the car for £175. Witness believed he gave the Harrisons papers when they . licensed the car in 1937. To the magistrate he said he gave David Harrison the old cars for the construction of saw-benches for disposal to adjoining farmers. Witness said' they could "go fifty-fifty," or David Harrison could supply him with flrewood. Ernest Hector Webber, employed by Cawthray's Motofs, related1 details of his visit to Harrison's farm to show them how to start the car. Witness operated the "choke," after which there was no difficulty in starting. ( ' -Y ' ' ' Evidence of Salesman. William Henry Harle, Stratford, formerly salesman at New Plymouth for Cawthray's Motors,^ said he learned from Page that his car was on the market No price was mentioned, but witness agreed to submit to Page the best offer. Pgge got the car from Dominion Motors and witness took it to Harrison's farm. Harrison was out on the farm, but he showed the car to Mrs. Harrison. She inquired the price, but witness said he could not say until he knew what he could get it for from the owner. On the following Hiursday witness returned to Lepperton and took the Harrisons for a drive. On going up a stiff rise it seemed as if there were a slight blockage of petrol, but when the car was "rewed" up the trouble righted itself. The car did not stop. Witness mentioned the company manager of "C.S." and Page, meaning there was orie owner before Page. Regarding price, witness said the car must have cost £600. Was it worth half? Witness looked at the truck and offered £75. Harrison said £300 for the car was too much, but agreed to £275. He asked £100 for thc truck. It v/as finally agreed to pay £190 for the car with the truck as a trade-in at £85. When the Harrisons asked him whether the speedometer showed the total distance travelled he said they nevet sold or purchased a car on the speedometer reading because they could not always guarantee the speedometer to be in working order, unless it had been in their own garage. He denied he told anyone the total mileage of -the car was about 6000. . Subsequently Harrison complained about the starting and said the mileage per gallon was not what they expected. The car was attended to and was tested by Rockstrow and later Harrison, after driving .round the mountain, said "that is something like a car." He added that he had got a twelve months' guarantee, which he had not expected for a secondhand car. • . ■ To Mr. Quilliam, Harle said that before he went' to see the Harrisons on the Thursday he saw Page the second time. Page then told him of the previous owner, but did not put a price. on the car, still leaving the matter as "the best offer." This concluded the, evidence for the defence. Referring to the alternative grounds for the claim, Mr. Quilliam conceded that it was a case of fraud or nothing.