Halpin v Rothwell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Hanlon J.,
• Judgment Date: 01 March 1984
• Neutral Citation: 1984 WJSC-HC 2286
• Docket Number: 1978 No. 5101 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 March 1984

1984 WJSC-HC 2286

THE HIGH COURT

1978 No. 5101 P

HALPIN v ROTHWELL

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL HALPIN

and

Plaintiff

SAMUEL ROTHWELL AND UNITED DOMINIONS TRUST (IRELAND) LTD.

Defendants

Subject Headings:

CONTRACT: privity

SALE OF GOODS: misrepresentation

1 Judgment delivered by O'Hanlon J., the 1st March, 1984.

2 Mr. Lee applied at the end of the Plaintiff's case for a direction in favour of his clients, the second-named Defendant, and I now have to give a decision in relation to that application.

3 The Plaintiff purchased a lorry in 1978 for the sum of £4,500, after some negotiations with the first-named Defendant, Samuel Rothwell, the registered owner of the lorry at the time, who held the lorry under a hire-purchase agreement with the second-named Defendant, United Dominions Trust (Ireland) Ltd. At that time the amount outstanding on the hire-purchase agreement was £4,746 or thereabouts.

4 The Plaintiff and the first-named Defendant went along to the office of the hire-purchase company in Carlow, where the Plaintiff wrote out a cheque in favour of the hire-purchase company for the amount he had agreed to pay - £4,500, - and the first-named Defendant concurrently handed over a cheque for the balance of the hire-purchase payments, £246 or thereabouts. That was the end of the transaction as far as the hire-purchase company were concerned. The Plaintiff left the premises with the first-named Defendant and went to obtain delivery of the lorry and the tax book relating thereto which was at all relevant times prior to the sale in the possession of the first-named Defendant.

5 The Plaintiff claims that Samuel Rothwell represented to him that the lorry was first registered in 1971, whereas the true date of first registration was much earlier - it appears to have been first registered in England as far back as 1957. He also claims that the Customs and Excise are seeking payment of a penalty on the basis that the lorry was imported into the State without authorisation, and threatened to seize the lorry if it was put on the road before this claim was disposed of. On this basis he seeks rescission of his agreement to purchase the lorry, and damages for breach of contract and/or fraud.

6 The hire-purchase company say that they should not be involved in any way in these claims and that they are properly a matter for litigation between the Plaintiff and Samuel Rothwell, who, they contend, was the true vendor of the lorry. The Plaintiff contends that the hire-purchase company...