188 / 736
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
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