The Gazette 1967/71

in for test on several occasions but A did not do so until eight months after he bought the car when a serious knock had developed and when B examined the engine found the crankshaft and bearing scorched and scarred. A endeavoured to prove negligence in reas sembling the engine after reboring but B's mechanic stated everything was in order that he had driven the car four months after purchase by A and the car appeared in perfect order and no signs of excessive use of oil could be seen. It appears that in relation to second hand cars of the vintage purchased by A, Hire Purchase Companies run a serious risk under the Hire Pur chase Acts but it also appears unreasonable that (except in the case of fraud by the seller) where reasonable care and skill have been exercised and the purchaser of a vintage car is aware of the age, condition and reconditioning, that either the seller or the Hire Purchase Company should be held liable on an implied warranty. A decree was given in favour of the Plaintiff. (Corrigan v. W. & H. Eades and The Hire Purchase Company of Ireland Ltd.—Birr Dis trict Court before District Justice McGrath). Hire Purchase, Failure of Consideration The hirer wished to buy a Sunbeam Rapier for £430 from a car dealer and to get £130 in part exchange for his own car. The dealer said he would arrange Hire Purchase Finance and per suaded the hire purchaser to sign in blank a set of forms previously provided by the defendant finance company. The hirer took the Sunbeam Rapier and left his own car. The dealer then sent in the form with different amounts from those agreed except the initial instalment was correctly shown at £130. The proposal was accepted and the dealer received a cheque for the balance of the purchase price shown on the form. When the hirer received his copy of the agreement he re fused to pay the instalments and the defendants took back the car and brought an unsuccessful action for arrears of instalments. The Plaintiff brought the present action to recover £130 which was the cash value of the car he had traded in. He contended (1) that there had been a total failure of consideration and (2) that the dealer was an agent of the Defendants to receive and .hold the initial deposit of £130. It was held that the action succeeded as there had been a total failure of consideration : the dealer was not an agent of the Defendants. The hirer had provided a cash deposit or its equivalent in kind by way of sale of an old car which he handed to the dealer

by any other person who appears to the Court to be interested. The question arose as to whether the solicitor was a person interested within the meaning of the Section. It is held by Megarry J. that the Section by a person interested meant a person interested in some propriety right as opposed to some personal right. It was more probable that the words re ferred to a pecuniary or proprietry interest rather than that they would embrace all manner of curiosity or concern. The solicitors interest in this case was not a proprietry right for while the solicitor was naturally interested in the success of his clients litigation this was more akin to the solicitors interest of a man in the welfare of his wife accordingly the solicitor was not the person who appears to the court to be interested within the meaning of the Section and the application should be refused. The solicitor was later allowed to amend the application as being made by the claimant through his next friend and it was ordered that the Company's name be restored. (In re Roehampton Swimming Pool Ltd. 112 S. J. 670). Unused cars—Hire Purchase A called to B's Garage, A having an older car. A saw a car in B's garage about which he made enquireis, this latter car had been rebored and the crankshaft reground by a local expert and new pistons and piston rings and bearings had been fitted. Arrangements were made between A and B whereby B took A's older car in part exchange, A paid B a sum of money and the balance purchase price was obtained through a Hire Purchase Company. The Hire Purchase Agree ment expressly excluded guarantees or warranties that the goods were fit for the purpose required. A claimed that he told B the purpose for which he (A) required the car but B denied this emphatically but stated he more or less knew why A required the Car, viz. to go to and from work. B proved on his own evidence and the indepen dent evidence of the garage proprietor who re- bored and reground the engine and which pro prietor was admitted by the Plaintiff to be an expert that no garage owner selling a car in excess of three years old could or would give any form of guarantee or warranty. A relied on the Hire Purchase Act that the goods were fit for the purpose for which it was purchased. A claimed the car was using oil excessibly and B gave evidence he requested A to bring the car 46