Condition of Vehicle But Action Fads
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
NAISREPRESENTATIONS about the M. condition of a vehicle, although innocent, are not sufficiently fundamental to allow a purchaser to rescind the contract, once he has taken possession. Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones gave this ruling in the Queen's Bench Division on Monday.
He dismissed a claim by Mr. S. 1. E. Long, haulage contractor, Oakdene Road, Sevenoaks, for rescission of a contract of sale to him of a 1947 Dennis Jubilant oil-engined lorry for £750 and the return of £375 paid by him. He allowed a counter-claim by defendant, Mr. L. T. Lloyd, also a haulier, of Clarence Place, Hampton Court, for the balance of the purchase price.
His lordship said Mr. Long complained that Mr. Lloyd had made several misrepresentations as to the vehicle's condition and performance. He alleged that plaintiff told him the lorry was in first-class condition, did not use much oil and would cover 11 m.p.g. of fuel. After plaintiff had pointed out defects in the accelerator and gears, he asked defendant if there was anything more wrong with it and defendant said: "Nothing; it is perfectly all right."
Mr. Lloyd had given fair and frank evidence and his lordship found that he had said, in substance, the things alleged by Mr. Long.
"The vehicle was not free from serious defects nor fit for immediate use," said his lordship. "1 feel sympathy for the parties, one of whom is bound to suffer loss which he cannot bear. I cannot blame defendant for saying what he honestly believed to be true.
"On the other hand, it was unwise of plaintiff to buy a 10-year-old vehicle of which he knew nothing without the aid of an experienced man. The fact remains, however, that plaintiff was induced to buy this vehicle by defendant's representations, which, though honestly made, were untrue."
At common law, a contract could not be rescinded beeause of innocent misrepresentations unless the misrepresentations were not only material, but also fundamental, in that they induced a mistaken belief as to the substance of the contract.
Misrepresentations in this case were not fundamental, as there was no room for any difference of opinion as to what was being sold. If the misrepresentations had amounted to a term of the contract the buyer's remedy would have been limited to a claim in damages if he had once accepted the goods. Mr. Long's act in using the lorry for business purposes amounted to acceptance.
The judge found that defendant was entitled to £375, the balance of the purchase price, but deducted £5, half the price of a renovated dynamo fitted by plaintiff, which defendant had agreed to pay. Defendant was awarded costs.