Magistrates' Courts
| Published date | 01 April 1974 |
| Date | 01 April 1974 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837403800201 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
VOLUME XXXVIII No. 2
Magistrates' Courts
INACCURATE
MILEOMETERS
Roberts v. Sharp
Aproblem which has greatly concerned those responsible for
enforcing the
Trade
Descriptions
Act
1968
(a
rather
clumsy
circumlocution for
the
Weights
and
Measures Inspectors
made
necessary by their slow translation into avariety of novel titles
such as
Trading
Standards
Officers) is the question of
what,
if any,
defence is available to a motor dealer who sells a
car
with a grossly
inaccurate
mileometer reading.
The
epithet is a considered one
because all mileometers are inaccurate to a greater or lesser extent.
Prosecutions
are
in practice brought, however, only where the
deficiency between
the
recorded mileage
and
the probable mileage
done by
the
vehicles is so
great
as to be
attributable
to deliberate
manipulation of
the
meter, whether on
the
part
of
the
defendant
or some antecedent owner.
The
existing case law on this admittedly difficult point was
canvassed
at
length in a prosecution recently
brought
before the
Poole magistrates. Amotor
trader
pleaded
not
guilty to
two
offences
under
s.I ( 1) (a) of the Act of applying a false trade description to
a
motor
vehicle in the course of his
trade
or business as well as to
two offences under
s.l
( 1) (b) of the
Act
for supplying
that
motor
vehicle to which those false
trade
descriptions
had
been applied,
the first
and
third
informations concerning an incorrect odometer
reading
and
the second
and
fourth adescription of the
car
as
"one
private doctor owner for new".
It
was common
ground
between
the
parties
that
the defendant,
trading
under
the name of Dorset Motors,
had
sold a 1969 Wolsely
motor
car
to
another
motor
dealer at a motor vehicle auction for
£675,
the
mileometer reading
at
the time of sale being just
under
30,000 miles.
The
purchaser, familiar with
the
method of sale
adopted
at
this
and
similar auctions, was aware of the fact
that
the
car,
which he
had
an opportunity to inspect before sale, bore promi-
nently upon its windscreen a form supplied by
the
auctioneers
but
93
To continue reading
Request your trial