SALE OF CAR LEADS TO CIVIL ACTION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18013, 25 November 1926, Page 9

SALE OF CAR LEADS TO CIVIL ACTION.

FALSE REPRESENTATION ALLEGED BY BUYER. A case of alleged false representation came before Mr IT. A. Young, S.M.. in the Magistrate's Court today which contained features of some unusual interest and meant calling many witneßC B. Owen, tailor, of Christchurch, claimed from A. J. Dyason, company manager, of Christchurch, the sum of £12.") as damages for fraud or breach of •warranty in the sale of a motor-car and the sum also of £lB for repairs which defendant promised to do to the car at the time of the sale. Mr W T. Sim appeared for the plaintiff lOwen, and Mr M. J. Gresson for Dyason. In his opening address Mr Sim explained that the claim was for £125 on the ground of false representation, or on the alternative for a breach of warrantv in connection with the sale of a Ruick car. Owen was the plaintiff, a tailor, and defendant, Dyason. was connected with the Vegetarian Health Food Depot. He resided on Cashmere Hills. Mr IT. A. Young: What has that connection ? Was he up there for the grass ? Mr Sim wont on to say that the contract was entered into in December. 1924. and was the result of an advertisement put in the “Star” through the agency of Ilott's, Ltd. It was a word v advertisement regarding the car. stating that it was a de luxe Buick. six-c-vlindcr of a recent model, in perfect running order, beautifully upholstered, with spare tyres, all the latest improvements, etc. The advertisement said to apply to Ilott’s, Ltd. The plaintiff Owen agreed to pay £325 for the car. paving £2OO cash, giving two promissorv notes of £SO each and the remaining’- £25 to be taken out in clothing. The promissory notes were dishonoured by Owen because of the reasons set cut in the claim. The representations made*in the advertisement were that the car was a 1922 model that cost double the amount that was being asked for it. Owen thought that he was buying a 1922 model, and he was a novice in motoring, but the representations, it was alleged, were not true. It was a 1920 model and had been owned bv a Mr Jopp, of South Canterbury, row deceased, who had used the car extensively. It could be proved that it had had much use and that it was not a 1922 model. It was contended that Dyason had made false representations as to the car and that those had constituted a breach of warranty entitling * Owen to damages. About i hristmas. 1924. Owen saw Dyason and had told him that he had heard that the car had been 6wned by Jopp. Dyason then said that that was all right, and that the car was in perfect order, and he could guarantee that. The plaintiff found the car unsatisfactory, and he therefore refused to meet the promissory notes to bring matters to a head. The car was brought for £325 on the assumption that it was in perfect running order and had been used for onjy two vears. set it was a 1920 model.’ There was also a collateral undertaking by Dyason to do certain repairs, but those had not been done bv defendant. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE. Richard Bedward Owen, tailor, said that the transaction started by seeing an advertisement, a copy of which he took at the “ Star ” office yesterday. He rang up the number given in the advertisement and Dyason came to see him. Ilott's employee on the telephone said to him that the advertiser was going away and she said that it was a good chance to secure a bargain When defendant saw witness he ex plained that he had to go away and that he regretted that he had to sell the car. He said that he had had the car about two years and that it cost £750. It was said by defendant that it was a 1922 model, that the car was used mostly for going to Brooklands, where the owner had a bach. He said that he had had the car about two years and that he had not given it much use. Defendant indicated that the speedometer showed 20,000 miles Witness asked defendant what ho wanted for the car and the reply was £325 or offer. “ but, Mr Owen, any offer that you make less than that amount will have to be. submitted and come out of our missionary fund.” Witness added that he was a subscriber to the Seventh Day Adventist fund and he was satisfied he was dealing with a man he was sure of. Witness did not make an offer, not wishing to take advantage of the fact that the man was going away and the fact that the difference was to come out of the missionary fund. The sum of £-325 was agreed upon. The advertisement said that there were four new tyres on. but they had to be replaced in a short time. The four tyres were replaced within a few months. Witness in those few months might have done up to 2000 or 3000 miles. From then on there was constant trouble; it had a bad squeak and defendant agreed to have that stopped, but witness had paid £4 15s to Stevens, body-builders, and Buick Sales and other companies varying amounts. During the six months after purchase the car gave constant trouble and just before he went away defendant asked how the ear was going. Witness told him it was all right, except for the squeak, but witness's boy came in and said that he had learned that the car belonged to Mr Jopp, of South Canter bury. Defendant, said he would give ' any guarantee that the car was in perfect order. He was not going away because his lousiness interests were here, and he would be returning in a few months. Early in July he sent witness a cheque for £lO. Some time after witness ascertained that Jopp was a racing man and the car had done about 20.000 miles. In August witness stopped payment of the promissory notes. Dyason gave witness to understand that he would return before the notes were due. ( Proceeding.)