Judgment for Coach Purchaser
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE sale of a 32-seater coach was the subject of a dispute in the Chancery Division in which judgment was given last week. Mr. E. G. 0. Deakin, Syon Park Gardens. Osterley, Middx., sued, Rayners Coachways, Ltd.. London Road, Ashford, Middx., for'damages for breach of contract.
Mr. Eric Myers, for Mr. Deakin. said that in July, 1948, the plaintiff bought from Rayners Coachwayi, Ltd.. a 1913: Gilford coach and spares for £720. He made a first payment of t3211.. The rest was to be paid under a hirepurchase agreement.
Mr. Deakin alleged that the defendant had wrongly described the coach to him as having a Duple body. The company had also said it was fit for public duties, whereas in fact it was refused a certificate of fitness.
In defence it was denied that Rayners Coachways. Ltd., had entered into a contract with Mr. Deakin. It had sold the coach to a finance company for wh:ch it acted as agents and with which Mr. Deakin entered into a hire-purchase contract.
Mr. R. Graham Dow, for the defendant, denied that any warranty as to the coach's condition had been given. It was agreed that the coach had been represented as having a Duple body—as indeed it had.
Mr. Justice Lloyd-Jacob said he was not able to determine whether or not the coach had a Duple body, He held that there was an enforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, an essential. condition of which, as warranted by the defendant, was that the vehicle should he such as to qualify for a certificate of fitness. atxl.that the vehicle was not fit.
The plaintiff was accordingly entitled to rescind the contract and to be recouped for the expenditure to which he had been put. There would be judgment for him for £362 6s. 5c1., with costs.