British Wagon Company Ltd v Shortt

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 December 1961
• Date: 12 December 1961
• Court: High Court

British Wagon Co. Ltd. v. Shortt.

BRITISH WAGON COMPANY LIMITED

and

JOHN C. SHORTT

Hire-purchase - Bailment - Goods - Wrongful detention - Claim in detinue - Alternative claim for conversion - Discretion of Court as to ordering return of goods or awarding damages for conversion - Measure of damages.

P. B., by a hire-purchase agreement made on the 14th July, 1955, became the hirer of bull-dozing machinery at a hire-purchase price of £4,285 0s. 0d. He defaulted in the payment of the instalments owing under the agreement and the plaintiffs terminated the same on the 4th March, 1958. On the 28th July, 1958, they obtained judgment against P. B. for the return of the machinery. On the 24th April, 1957, P. B. had purported to sell the machinery to the defendant for the sum of £1,300, and the defendant had been in possession of the machinery since that date. On the 19th March, 1959, the plaintiffs demanded the return of the machinery. The defendant refused to return it unless and until they paid to him the sum of £601 2s. 6d., the amount spent by him in repairing and fitting parts to the machinery since the date upon which he had purported to buy it.

On the 7th April, 1959, the plaintiffs instituted proceedings, claiming a return of the machinery and damages for its retention, or, alternatively, damages for its conversion. They further claimed an account of all monies received by the defendant in respect of the use of the machinery, and payment to them of the amount so found. The defendant claimed to be entitled to retain possession until the said sum of £601 2s. 6d. was paid, and he counterclaimed for this amount. At the trial the plaintiffs abandoned their claim for a return of the machinery and damages for its retention, and sought merely damages for conversion.

Held by Davitt P.:—

1, The defendant was not entitled to refuse to return the machinery to the plaintiffs until paid the amount of his claim, and his refusal to return the machinery on the 19th March, 1959, amounted to a conversion of the goods;

2, In exercising his discretion, his Lordship was prepared to award damages for conversion of the machinery rather than give judgment for its return and damages for its detention;

3, The measure of damages was the value of the machinery (found to be £1,200) at the date of its conversion, together with such amount as the plaintiffs would have earned in the course of their business of financing hire-purchase transactions had they not been deprived of the sum converted;

4, The amount which the plaintiffs would have so earned should be assessed at the total of interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on £1,200 from the 19th March, 1959, to the date of judgment.

Witness Action.

The Plaintiffs, the...