AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Mystery Hirer

17th November 1961
Page 39
Page 39, 17th November 1961 — The Mystery Hirer
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

rAA CHORLEY (Lanes) company lost their claim for £178 18s. 9d, for the hire of a lorry at Charley County Court last week.

Mr. S. H. Cross, for the plaintiffs, North Western Tippers, Ltd., Chorley, said the claim was for the hire of a lorry to Wilfred Tiplady, of Oxford Street, Morecambe.

The secretary of North Western Tippers, Mr. H. Holt, said on June 4 a man whom he did not know, said he wanted to hire a lorry on behalf of " Bitmak " of Morecambe. The man asked for the lorry to be at a certain quarry in Cam forth at 8 a.m, the next day. The lorry was hired until July 13. That amounted in all to 2041 hours' work at I7s. 6d. an hour, which made £178 18s. 9d.

Mr. Cross said Tiplady's defence was that he had never hired the lorry or authorized anyone to do so for him.

Tiplady said in evidence that he had not used the trade name of " Bitmak " for about four years. For some time he had been employed by two men, who were relatives of his. on a day-to-day basis as a driver. He used his own pickup and was paid 14 a day.

He said his employers left the district some time ago. A few months ago he started trading under the name " Duromak," because he had seen his old visiting cards with the name " Bitmak " on them in the hands of certain people who were owed money.

Mr. Justice Walmsley, said the man who had been on the telephone to the plaintiff company was completely unidentified. Mr. Holt had not even said he recognized the voice as that of Tiplady. The defendant .liad been perfectly frank in saying he had traded under the name " Bitmak." He had found out his former employers were making use of the name and had other cards printed.

What happened, unfortunately, was that the plaintiff company had chosen to given considerable credit without really ascertaining the identity of the personnel of the firm with whom they were contracting. It might be that they could sue other persons, but he had no other recourse but to give judgment to the defendant.


comments powered by Disqus