NEW ANGLES IN THE ETERNAL HIRE‐PURCHASE TRIANGLE
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1962.tb00676.x |
| Published date | 01 January 1962 |
| Author | Alec Samuels |
NEW ANGLES
IN
THE
ETERNAL
HIRE-PURCHASE TRIANGLE
AN
interesting and potentially useful line
of
defence for the oppressed
hirer was raised in the decision
of
Maeter Jacob in the case of
Yeoman
Credit,
Ltd.
v.
Coleman,‘
which curiously seems
to
have
passed unnoticed. The hirer (the defendant) had arranged with a
dealer to sell
a
second-hand car to the finance company (the plain-
tiffs) who in turn had let the car to the hirer under
a
hire-purchase
contract. Since the
sum
to be paid under this contract exceeded
€300
the Hire Purchase Acts,
198!3-54,
did not apply. The report
does not indicate whether any representations were made by the
dealer to the hirer before the transaction, but the Master found
that the car
on
delivery was
in
a poor, defective and deplorable
state, not in good or proper working order and condition, and not
of merchantable quality. The hire-purchase contract excluded any
liability
on
the company’s part
in
respect of the condition of the
car. The finance com-
pany retook possession and sued the hirer
for
damages representing
the difference between the hire-purchase price and the value of the
car when it was repossessed. The finance company did not make
any claim against the dealer, nor did they even commuuicate with
him. They apparently believed that they had
no
claim against the
dealer in respect of the condition
of
the car
for
“
the company had
entirely misconceived their legal rights against the dealer both
under the Sale of Goods Act and under their Recourse agreement.”
The finance company lost their action
on
the ground that their
failure to communicate in any way with the dealer amounted to a
failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss and damage
occasioned to them by reason of the hirer’s breach of contract. They
had two claims which they could have pursued, one against the
dealer and the other against the hirer; their mistake had been to
misconceive their rights against the dealer by not consulting him
and finding out his attitude to the defectiveness of the car supplied.
It
was
no
answer for the company to say that the hirer had a right
of action against the dealer for breach of warranty. That might
be
so;
but
it
did not disable the hirer from contending successfully
that the finance company should take reasonable steps
to
mitigate
their loss.
HLBEB’S
RIGHTS
AGAINST
THE
DEW
Did the hirer have
a
remedy against the dealer
?
Generally there is
no contract between the dealer and the hirer, since the dealer sells
The hirer refused to pay his instalments.
1
The
Times,
September
28.
1960.
25
To continue reading
Request your trial