Yeoman Credit Ltd v Waragowski

: We need not trouble you, Mr Lloyd-Eley. I will ask Lord Justice Davies to deliver the first Judgment.

This is an appeal from an assessment of damages by Master Lawrence who, on the 15th February, 1960, assessed the sum of damages suffered by the Plaintiffs at the sum of £96. 2. 0d, and this is an appeal by the Defendant from that award.

The circumstances giving rise to the case can be very shortly stated. The Plaintiffs are, of course, a well-known hire-purchase finance company. On the 19th January, 1959, a hire-purchase agreement was entered into between the parties for the hire of a Thomes Ford Ven. The Plaintiffs had, according to the learned Master's finding, paid to the dealer the agreed cash price of £360. The detailed figures of the transaction appear on the face of the photostatic copy of the hire-purchase agreement that we have seen, and it is sufficient for the purposes of this Judgment be say that the total hire-purchase price was a sum of £434.7. 0d. That was made up of a cash deposit of £72, 36 monthly instalments of £10. 0. 9d, commencing on the 6th February, 1959, and the usual £1 for the option to purchase at the end of the hiring if it so long lasted. The Defendant paid the initial deposit of £72 and, for reasons that we have not been told, paid not a penny more. The owners, as they were entitled to under the agreement, terminated the hiring on the 13th July, 1959, and re-took possession of the vehicle on the 21st July, 1959, and eventually sold it for the sum of £205, which the learned Master has found - and no complaint whatsoever is made of this finding - was the best price that in all the circumstances they could reasonably get.

That having been done, the Plaintiffs brought an action in the Queen's Bench Division against the Defendant under clause 7 of the hire-purchase agreement, which perhaps it is convenient that I should read. I bear in mind that by clause 5, as in all these agreements, the hirer is given expressly the option at any time to determine the hiring by returning, at his own risk and cost, the goods in good condition and repair to the owner at such address as the owner may appoint.Clause 7 says: "Should the hiring; "ho terminated by the hirer or the owner then (subject to the provisions of clause 11 hereof)" - which I think are not material to the present case - "the hirer shall forthwith pay to the owner damages for breach hereof (if any) and either (a) such further sum as with the total already paid by the hirer by way of first payment and rentals shall equal one half of the hire purchase price as agreed compensation for depreciation of the goods or at the option of the owner (b) the amount of the rentrls and other moneys then already due hereunder together with such further sums as would if the hiring had not been terminated have been payable in respect of rent during the period (if any) between the termination of the hiring hereunuer and the return of the goods to the owner".

In fact what the hire-purchase company, the Plaintiffs, chose to sue for in this action was the amount of the rentals due up to the 6th July, 1959) a total of £60. 4. 6d; that is to say they proceeded under part (b) of cause 7 of the agreement and elected not to go under (a) of the agreement, which provides, as I have said, for a claim for compensation for depreciation at a sum to be...