Davies v Sumner
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1984 |
| Date | 1984 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Trade Description - False description - “In the course of a trade or business” - Sale of car used almost exclusively for business of self-employed courier - Whether safe “in the course of” courier's business -
The defendant bought a car in June 1980 which he used almost exclusively for the purpose of his business as a self-employed courier. By July 1981, the car had travelled 118,100 miles, but the five-figure odometer showed only 18,100 miles, and the appearance of the car was consistent with that reading. Without disclosing the true mileage, he then sold the car in part-exchange for a new vehicle, signed an invoice which recorded the mileage as that shown on the odometer, and received credit appropriate to that mileage against the price of the new vehicle. The justices convicted the defendant of applying, in the course of a trade or business, a false trade description to the car, to the effect that it had travelled 18,100 miles whereas its true mileage was in excess of 118,000 miles, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.F1
On appeal by the defendant on the ground that the false description had not been applied by him in the course of a trade of business:—
Held, allowing the appeal, that a person committed the offence of applying a false trade description contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 only if the transaction in respect of which the false trade description was applied formed an integral part of that person's trade or business and that, accordingly, the fact that the asset which was the subject of the transaction was used substantially or even exclusively in the course of the trade or business was not sufficient of itself to bring the transaction within section 1(1)(a)(post, pp. 409G–410C, D–E).
The following case is referred to in the judgments:
Havering London Borough Council v. Stevenson [
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Symmons (Peter) & Co. v. Cook (
CASE STATED by Clwyd justices sitting at Flint.
On 17 March 1982, the prosecutor, Gary Sumner, a senior special investigations officer, duly authorised by and and on behalf of the Clwyd County Council, laid an information charging the defendant that he in the course of trade or business on 1 August 1981 at Bagillt in the County of Clwyd by means of a vehicle sales invoice did apply to certain goods, namely, a Ford motor car registration mark UDM 230V, a false trade description to the effect the the motor car had travelled 18,100 miles whereas the true mileage travelled by the motor car was in excess of 118,000 miles, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
The justices heard the charge on 7 July 1982 and found the following facts. The defendant was a self-employed courier engaged exclusively by the Harlech Television Co. to transport films and video tapes, etc. from Mold, Clwyd to Cardiff, South Wales and on occasions from and to other destinations. For that purpose the defendant provided his own vehicle, namely a Ford motor car, registration mark UDM 230V. The defendant was paid a fee for each journey and in addition was paid a subsistence allowance. He was required to pay all expenses involved in the maintenance and running costs of the vehicle and in respect of those the defendant, on his own admission, claimed and was allowed tax relief as business expenses. For that purpose the defendant purchased the vehicle in June 1980 prior to which he had, for a few months, rented a vehicle. Between June 1980 and July 1981 the Ford car had travelled in excess of 100,000 miles when the defendant decided to purchase a new car to continue his business as a self-employed courier. On 31 July 1981 he visited the showrooms of Messrs. H. J. Davies, Bagillt, Clwyd, Ford main dealers, where he arranged to purchase a new Ford, offering his Ford in part exchange. His vehicle was examined by the salesman, and the mileometer showed a recorded mileage of 18,000 only. The appearance of the vehicle was consistent with that of a vehicle having travelled 18,000 miles and the salesman did inquire of the mileage travelled. The purchase price of the new car was £8,270 and he was offered £3,800 for his Ford car UDM 230V, leaving a balance of £4,470 to be paid by the defendant. The defendant agreed and it was arranged that he should collect the new vehicle on 1 August 1981. On that day the defendant went to the showrooms where he collected the new vehicle, handed in his old vehicle, and signed a vehicle sales invoice to complete the transaction. The sales invoice included a declaration that the mileage of Ford UDM 230V was 18,100. The speedometer on that Ford, however...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Shrewsbury Crown Court (ex parte Venables)
...Ltd. [1976] 1 WLR 1243, CA; Corfield v Starr (1981) RTR 380, DC; Newman and Others v Hackney London Borough Council (1982) RTR 296, DC; Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 405, DC; Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 1301, HL; R v Southwood [1987] 1 WLR 1361, CA; Swithland Motors Ltd. v Peck (1991) RTR 3......
-
Davies v Sumner
...Act of 1968. 3The respondent appealed by way of case stated, and on 25 July 1983 a Divisional Court (Robert Goff L.J. and Forbes J.) [1984] 1 W.L.R. 405, allowed his appeal and certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved. The prosecutor now appeals, with leave, ......