Judgment in the amount of $425, together with costs, was given Mr Antosheen against " Relianse Motors last Wednesday in the U. 5. Consular Court by Mr. W. T. Collins, ering Commissioner. Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Paul Premet, while Mr. Jack Yuen appeared for the defence.
Mr. Premet stated that in October, 10904, the plaintiff purchased an} Oldsmobile ear from the defendants, and in the sales agreement it. was stipulated that the car be a 1920 model. Plaintitt accordingly paid $425 on the day of purchase, signing Promissory notes for the remaind 'The plaintiff subsequently learned that the car was a. 1928 model, and placed the matter in the hands' of his lawyer, who requested Reliance Motors to' make an adjustment the matter. Defendants were informed that nothing further would be paid until an agreement was reached, Without warning, continued Mr. Premet, the defendants repossessed the car on May 25, and his client} therefore asked for & cancellation of sies agreement, a refund of the $425, and damages for having been Geprived of the use of the car, For the defence, Mr. Yuen replied that at the time of the sale, Reliance Motors firmly believed the car to be a 1929 model. The plaintiff had at all times full opportunity to inspect the car, and had in fact done 50 before he signed the agreement to purchase It, He submitted that the plaintitt had.no grounds for his claim for bby the cancellation of the sales agr ment, and that the right of cancella~ tion accrued to the defendants only.
Giving judgment, Mr. Collins said that by virtue of the fact that the defendant company repossessed the cor without making sufficient effort te adjust the difference relating Mr, Antosheen's statement that the our was a 1928 model and to the continuance of regular payments specified in the contract, the plaintitt jsrould be given an order to recover from Reliance Motors the $425 pre- th Zhe lain for damages was dismissed. ously paid, together with
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.