AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Court Told of Cracked Chassis in "Al" Lorry

27th January 1961
Page 39
Page 39, 27th January 1961 — Court Told of Cracked Chassis in "Al" Lorry
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?

DEFECTS in a lorry led to a case of alleged breach of warranty in Sheffield County Court last Friday. Brocklebank and Co. (Demolition), Ltd.. Doctor Lane, Sheffield, claimed damages totalling £165 against Phillips Motor Services (Sheffield), Ltd., Handsworth Road, Woodhouse, Sheffield.

Mr. Arthur Brockleb'ank, managing director, said that on January 20 last year he bought the lorry. He was shown a list of repairs done to it totalling g370 18s. 9d. He said that Mr. Phillips told him that it was in Al condition. If anything went wrong it would be put right immediately. He paid £600 for it.

On one of its first trips, said Mr. Brocklebank, the lorry developed clutch

Illegal Carrying

A T Thornaby last week, G. Hall and

Son (Haulage), Ltd., of Westbury Street, Thornaby, admitted seven breaches of B licence conditions, and also pleaded guilty to three summonses of failing to cause a current record of work to be kept. They were fined £5 for each offence.

Mr. J. Montgomery said the firm had carried steel to Rotherham and Newcastle and cement to Ripon when the vehicles were not licensed to carry the materials. The vehicles had also gone out of the area in which their licences operated.

LOADING RESTRICTIONS 'THE experimental restriction on the

loading and unloading of cars and dual-purpose vehicles in the parking meter zones of Central London is to be extended to May 19. trouble. This cost £38 19s. 6d. to repair, towards which Mr. Phillips paid £15. A few days later, lie said, a 'crack in the chassis was discovered. The lorry was taken off the road on February 1 and had not been used since. On contacting Mr. Phillips, he was told it "must have been our fault through overloading."

In cross-examination, Mr. Brocklebank said that the seven-ton lorry had carried more than nine tons on occasions. He said that he was told this was all right provided the load was evenly distributed. He denied that it had been used to carry loads of as much as 12 tons.

Judge Ernest Ould gave judgment for Brocklebank and Co. and awarded damages of £165.


comments powered by Disqus