Equitable Relief In The Law Of Hire‐Purchase

Date01 November 1957
Published date01 November 1957
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1957.tb02722.x
EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THE LAW OF
HIRE-PURCHASE
THE
article by
Mr.
Aubrey
L.
Diamond in the
Modern Law
Review
of
September,
1956
(at p.
498),
advanced the view that
the court has power
to
grant equitable relief
to
the hirer of goods
under a hire-purchase agreement, when in its inherent discretion it
desires
so
to do. The basis
of
the learned author's contention
appears to be as follows
:
-
(a) That the decision in
Cramer
v.
Giles'
which is
"
usually
cited for the proposition that equity will not relieve the hirer
against a forfeiture caused by default in punctual payment of
instalments," does not expressly deal with the question
of
equitable relief, and is not therefore good authority for the
proposition mentioned.
(b) That the courts have recently construed certain
"
mini-
mum payment
))
clauses as being
of
a penal nature, and
therefore unenforceable.2
(c)
That for the purposes of relief against forfeiture the
courts
are likely
to
treat hirepurchase agreements in the same
way as a contract for the sale of goods (see
Warman
v.
Southern
Counties Car Finance Corporation,
Ltd.),a
and that, therefore,
relief against forfeiture can be given in .the same way as
it
has
been held to be permissible in certain cases of goods being
purchased by instalments; namely, by preventing the owner
from forfeiting the instalments already paid when goods are
retaken as
a
result of the hirer's breach of a term
of
the
agreement.'
It
was further contended that relief might be given
to
an assignee
of the hirer, because
of
his status
qua
assignee, and because of the
court's inherent jurisdiction
to
grant relief
to
a defendant.
The purpose
of
the present article is to suggest that there is in
fact
no
power at
common
law (including equity)
to
grant relief
against the enforcement of the terms
of
a hire-purchase agreement
(except within the normal rules
of
the law
of
contract), and also
that,
in
one case at least, the Hire-Purchase Acts
of
1988
and
1954
have not provided any form of statutory relief.
It
is suggested that a typical set of circumstances in which a
claim
for
relief might (morally) be most properly considered, is
in
a
case similar to the following-
H
acquires goods under a hire-purchase agreement for
a
total sum
of
$500.
Having paid
€400
H
defaults in
his
weekly
1
(1883)
Cab.
&
Ell.
151.
2
See,
for
example,
Cooden Engineering
Co.,
Ltd.
v.
Stanford
[1953] 1
Q.B.
3
[I9491
2
E.B.
576.
4
See
Stockloser
V.
Johnson
[1954]
1
Q.B.
476.
86;
Lamdon Tncat, Ltd.
v.
Hurrell
[1955] 1
W.L.R.
391.
620

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT