§ Amendment made: In page 8, line 12, after the first "1939," insert "or."—[The Attorney-General.]
§ The Attorney-GeneralI beg to move, in page 8, line 43, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the court shall not provide for the vesting of any goods under this subsection before the debtor has paid in respect of the hire-purchase price sums amounting at least to the value of the goods at the date of the liabilities adjustment order.When the Bill was in Committee, it was suggested that we might be able to fix some money limit below which the court could not exercise its power of vesting goods on hire purchase. The suggestion was made in an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). We think that that would be an improvement; and that the court should not make an order vesting the goods on hire purchase unless the amount paid is equal to the value of the goods at the time.
§ Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and Stirling, Eastern)Does that mean when the amount paid is less than the value, the goods will be vested in the company which has sold them to the purchaser?
§ The Attorney-GeneralAll we say in that case is that the court cannot make a vesting order. Of course, the company may agree that the goods should remain, and collect the balance. It would depend on the terms of the agreement.
§ Mr. WoodburnIn the case of a company having the right to retake the goods under the contract, will the liabilities adjustment officer have any power to safeguard the purchaser in the event of his being in serious financial difficulties which would make it impossible for him to pay the balance?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere is nothing to prevent some adjustment. All that this Amendment says is that the court cannot vest the goods by order.
§ Amendment agreed to.