HIRE-PURCHASE BILL.

HL Deb 05 July 1938 vol 110 cc516-64

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, before moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee, perhaps you will allow me to make a short explanation about the number of Amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper. After the Bill had been read a second time in this House it was subjected to a very careful examination and the result has been that a number of drafting and consequential Amendments were found necessary. This investigation also showed that there were gaps in the Bill which required to be filled. Also a number of the clauses have to be expanded so as to show clearly what the intention of the Bill is, and there are various legal points which have arisen. I may say, further, that the Amendments which stand in my name have the approval of the promoters and of the various trading associations, twenty-six or twenty-seven in number. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Application of Act.

1. This Act shall apply to all hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements relating to livestock under which the hire-purchase price or total purchase price, as the case may be, does not exceed the sum of five hundred pounds, and to all other hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements under which the hire-purchase price or total purchase price, as the case may be, does not exceed—

1. (a) where the agreement relates to a motor vehicle (including any accessories thereto) or railway wagon or other railway rolling stock the sum of fifty pounds;
2. (b) in any other case the sum of one hundred pounds;

and the expressions "hire-purchase agreement" and "credit-sale agreement" shall be read accordingly.

LORD AMULREE moved, after "This Act shall apply," to insert "in relation." The noble Lord said: All the Amendments standing in my name on Clause 1 are merely drafting, the point being that they make the clause neater and more easily understood. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, after ("apply") insert ("in relation").—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should very much like to ask what precisely the improvement consists in. If I apply a stick to my son I know what is happening. If I apply a stick "in relation" to my son it means, I think, that I put it somewhere near him. I really do not understand the clause with the Amendment.

LORD AMULREE

I do not know what my noble friend's difficulty is. The clause will read: This Act shall apply in relation to all hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements relating to livestock under which the hire-purchase price or total purchase price, as the case may be, does not exceed the sum of five hundred pounds.… That is surely quite clear.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to leave out "hire-purchase agreements and credit-sale agreements relating to livestock under which the hire-purchase price or total purchase price, as the case may be, does not exceed the sum of five hundred pounds, and to all other." The noble Viscount said: The two Amendments to this clause standing in my name are intended to make this Bill apply to livestock to the same extent as, and to no greater extent than, to all other goods, except motor cars, which come under the Bill—that is to say, to include all transactions in livestock up to a limit of £100 and to do away with the special limit of £500 which now stands in the Bill as drafted. When the Bill was first introduced in another place there was no special limit for livestock transactions, but an Amendment was carried there introducing this special limit of £500, thus bringing livestock transactions into the Bill to a value five times greater than that of the ordinary transactions. It seems to me that the discussion in another place was not a very complete one, and that where so big an exception is made in favour of a particular industry your Lordships' House should make it clear that it gives specific approval or disapproval, as the case may be, to this exception.

Unless some substantial reasons can be brought forward for making the exception, I do not think your Lordships' House would be justified in leaving the Bill as it stands. After all, this Bill was designed, on general grounds, to protect persons, whose resources fall below a certain level, and I see no particular reason at the moment to treat the farmers differently to any other class of persons who engage in hire-purchase. I have never been quite clear why this Amendment was moved in another place. I believe one of the reasons given was that unless the limit was put up to £500 it would be impossible to bring the livestock industry effectively within the scope of the Bill. But on the Second Reading of the Bill here I gave your Lordships some figures which, with your permission, I will repeat, and which I got from a source that is sufficiently authoritative to be representative of the hire-purchase trade as a whole. These figures show that the average financial transaction in respect of machinery was between £107 and £117, whereas the average transaction in respect of store cattle was only £138, not, as you will see, five times higher than the average transaction in machinery.

It was also urged, I believe, that the hire-purchase traders deal hardly with the farmers, and one case was brought up to prove that this was so. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating what I said on the Second Reading, but that case was thoroughly investigated and it was found that the hardship did not really exist or, at any rate, that the hardship was not all on the side of the farmer, but was in fact on the side of the cattle, which had been so badly fed by the farmer that their value decreased and therefore they could not be said to be worth the same price as they were when they were taken by the farmer on hire-purchase. It looks as if those who were responsible for the Amendment in another place thought that the farmers were less able to protect themselves than other people who engage in hire-purchase. As the Bill stands, the fact of the matter is that whereas a farmer is only protected to the extent of £100 if he buys machinery for his farm or £50 if he buys a motor car for farming purposes, he is protected to the extent of £500 if he buys livestock. Surely if a man is a farmer he should be more a judge of livestock than of anything else. It was also suggested that if farmers indulge in hire-purchase it would be difficult for the auctioneers to press sales of cattle by farmers who held these cattle on hire-purchase and therefore were wrongfully selling them. That, I admit, is a possible objection, but it has always struck me, from what I know of the agricultural world, that there is never very much difficulty in finding out about somebody else's stock, and I do not think there will be any difficulty in this case.

There is one other aspect of this Amendment which ought to be mentioned, and it is the last. Most ordinary traders have two alternative methods of finance—either by obtaining a loan or by hire-purchase. The farmer has a third method—namely, by taking advantage of the arrangements which the auctioneers provide for him. The Amendment made in another place, if it is passed, will definitely weight the scales against hire-purchase in favour of one of the other two methods. Whether that is right or wrong your Lordships' House must judge, but it seems to me that the farmers should be free, so far as the Bill is concerned, to choose which method of obtaining credit they wish to adopt. At any rate that is the case as I see it for my Amendment. The important thing is that there should be a clear expression of opinion on the part of your Lordships' House as to whether or not this special limit for livestock should remain in the Bill. Personally I think it should not remain, and I say so even realising the disadvantage of not sending an agreed measure back to another place. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("all") to ("hire-purchase") in line 10.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save the next Amendment on the list, I shall put the Question to leave out from "all" to "agreements" in line 7.

LORD AMULREE

The effect of the Amendments of the noble Viscount is that the limit in respect of livestock should be £50, not £100 as he indicated. It seems to me that £50 in respect of livestock is really of no value whatever. Your Lordships know perfectly well that livestock are generally bought in numbers. Cattle are bought at the market up to ten, fifteen, twenty, and so on, and if you are buying dairy cows, whose value is from £20 to £30 each, a limit of £50 in the hire-purchase agreement is not of much value to the farmer. It is the same in regard to other stock. The noble Viscount said the Amendment made elsewhere had not been considered and that it was not in the Bill as originally introduced; but it was carefully considered by the Committee in another place. In fact the first Amendment put in the Bill in another place was that there should be no limit at all in regard to livestock, and after that had been accepted it came up a day or two afterwards for consideration and it was thought advisable to introduce a limit of £500 so as to exclude pedigree stock, race horses, and such like. When the Bill came before another place for Third Reading the limit of £500 was formally inserted with the unanimous approval of another place.

Many farmers have been brought to bankruptcy under hire-purchase agreements and in many cases the agreements have brought about destitution. A livestock hire-purchase agreement differs in one important respect from any other hire-purchase agreement, because the articles obtained under ordinary hire-purchase agreements depreciate in value, whereas, generally speaking, the livestock purchased under livestock hire-purchase agreements maintain their value and, in some cases, even increase it. I submit that this is a reasonable provision and it has the support of the National Farmers' Union. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD AMULREE

The next two Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("agreements") to ("under") in line 11. Page 1, line 15, leave out ("including any accessories thereto").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after paragraph (a), to insert: (b) where the agreement relates to livestock, the sum of five hundred pounds, and".

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is clear from its words. It is merely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 21, leave out ("read") and insert ("construe").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Requirements relating to hire-purchase agreements]:

LORD AMULREE

The two Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 24 and insert ("contract of guarantee relating thereto or any right to recover the goods from the hirer"). Page 3, line 3, leave out ("set out") and insert ("prescribed").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Requirements relating to credit-sale agreements.

3.—(1) Before any credit-sale agreement is entered into in respect of any goods, the seller shall state in writing to the prospective buyer, otherwise than in the note or memorandum of the agreement, a price at which the goods may be purchased by him for cash (in this section referred to as the "cash price"):

Provided that this subsection shall be deemed to have been sufficiently complied with— (a) if the buyer has inspected the goods or like goods and at the time of his inspection tickets or labels were attached to or displayed with the goods as a whole or of all the different articles or sets of articles comprised therein; or

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), after "Before," to insert "making." The noble Lord said: This clause deals with requirements relating to credit-sale agreements, and subsection (2) says that a person who has sold under a credit-sale agreement goods of which the total purchase price exceeds £5 shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement. This Amendment and the one following it are necessary in view of the fact that the sanction imposed by subsection (2) for failure to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) applies only in a case where the total purchase price of the goods exceeds £5. Agreements under which the total purchase price is less than this sum are excluded from the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, after ("Before") insert ("making").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

I have already explained the purport of the next Amendment which I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("agreement") to ("the") in line 18 and insert ("under which the total purchase price exceeds five pounds").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, in proviso (a) of subsection (1), after "goods," to insert "clearly stating the cash price, either of the goods." The noble Lord said: Certain words were by a printer's error omitted in the printing of the Bill and the words that I move are necessary to complete the sense of the paragraph and make it correspond with paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 2.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, after ("goods") insert ("clearly stating the cash price, either of the goods").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 26, leave out ("under") and insert ("goods by").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The words which I propose to leave out by my next Amendment are unnecessary inasmuch as the right to recover goods can only be by definite agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 37, leave out ("goods of") and insert ("under") and leave out from the beginning of line 39 to ("or") in line 40.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 40, leave out ("to guarantee the liabilities of any party to the agreement") and insert ("or guarantee relating thereto").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Right of hirer to determine hire-purchase agreement.

4.—(1) A hirer shall, at any time before the final payment under a hire-purchase agreement falls due, be entitled to determine the agreement by giving notice of termination in writing to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement, and shall, on determining the agreement under this section, be liable to pay any sums due under the agreement and unpaid at the date of the termination, and the amount, if any, by which one-half of the hire-purchase price exceeds the total of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the hire-purchase price, or such less amount as may be specified in the agreement. (3) A hirer who has determined a hire-purchase agreement under this section may deliver the goods to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement, and such a delivery shall be deemed to be a delivery to the owner.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), after "liable," to insert "without prejudice to any liability which has accrued before the termination." The noble Lord said: It is necessary that these words should be inserted having regard to the definition clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, after ("liable") insert ("without prejudice to any liability which has accrued before the termination").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, leave out from ("pay") to the third ("the") in line 38.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 41, after ("price") insert ("immediately before the termination").(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, leave out ("for") and insert ("to pay").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I must apologise for putting down a manuscript Amendment, but I was reading this Bill just before coming into the House and when I applied my mind to subsection (3) I was rather horrified. Subsection (1) provides procedure for determining an agreement of the very simplest kind, and rightly so I think. But under subsection (3) a hirer who has determined a hire-purchase agreement may deliver the goods to any person entitled or authorised to receive the sums payable under the agreement … That means any collector or agent of the principal. The whole object of the Bill is to facilitate these transactions. A person may make regular monthly or weekly payments to the agent of the principal who comes round and collects them at such times as the hirer is at home, perhaps in the evening. Under this subsection, if a hirer determines an agreement, which he can do by registered letter sent to the principal, he can at any moment put the whole of the furniture of a room at the disposal of the man who comes to collect the payments and leave that man landed with the furniture, unable to dispose of it. The subsection says the hirer "may deliver" and that implies that this agent, this collector must accept delivery. It is an impossible position to put anybody in, to compel a man who is perhaps going round on a Friday evening to accept delivery of the whole of a man's drawing-room furniture. He may have to go and find a warehouse and give up all his collecting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Saltoun.)

LORD AMULREE

This clause is quite simple, and was inserted with a view to facilitating the termination of agreements. It does not say that the hirer "shall" deliver the goods. It simply says "may." It was thought to be well to provide a simple way of stating how the goods may be delivered in the event of an agreement coming to an end. No doubt the noble Lord has made the most of the point that the goods may be delivered at an inconvenient time. But that often happens in many transactions. Goods are delivered at inconvenient times and it is impossible to provide for all possible eventualities. I submit that the clause is quite a simple one, although I agree that it may be abused on some occasions.

LORD SALTOUN

I do not want to press the Amendment at this stage, because it is a manuscript Amendment and I was not able to give my noble friend proper notice, but really in what he said he has established my point. If the hirer takes advantage of this provision that he "may deliver" my noble friend accepts that then the collector must take such delivery. The agent may find himself with a whole suite of drawing-room furniture, not knowing what to do with it. The hirer may be in a bad temper, and if he is he is just as likely as not to do that. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now, but I hope my noble friend will consider the point carefully before the next stage.

LORD AMULREE

I am much obliged to my noble friend and I will readily undertake to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMULREE

The next and other Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments. They are intended to make it clear that the hirer is wrongfully in possession of the goods. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 10, leave out ("has") and insert ("having").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 11, leave out ("and") and insert ("wrongfully").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, after ("goods") insert ("from the hirer").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

There is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 17, leave out ("defendant") and insert ("hirer").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Avoidance of certain provisions.

5. Any provision in any agreement—

1. (a) whereby an owner or any person acting on his behalf is exempted from any liability for entering upon any premises for the purpose of taking possession of goods which have been let under a hire-purchase agreement, or in respect of any taking possession of any such goods to which he would otherwise be subject; or
527
2. (b) whereby the right conferred on a hirer by this Act to determine the hire-purchase agreement is excluded or restricted, or whereby any liability in addition to the liability imposed by this Act is imposed on a hirer on the termination under this Act of the hire-purchase agreement; or

LORD AMULREE moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "exempted from any liability for entering" and insert "authorised to enter." The noble Lord said: The object of this clause is to avoid certain provisions which hitherto have been usual in hire-purchase agreements. It is sometimes found that the owner is authorised to enter and also that he is relieved from liability for any such entry. It is proposed that the clause should be widened to cover these cases.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 23, leave out from ("is") to ("upon") in line 24 and insert ("authorised to enter").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

I have already explained why it is necessary to insert the words in the next Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 26, leave out from ("agreement") to the end of line 28, and insert ("or is relieved from liability for any such entry").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, leave out the second ("on") and insert ("by reason of").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 35, leave out ("under this Act").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, in paragraph (b), after "agreement," where that word last occurs, to insert "by him under this Act." The noble Lord said: This paragraph as it stands relates only to determination by the owner. The Amendment is to widen it to cover all possible cases.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, after ("agreement") insert ("by him under this Act").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("whereby") to ("or") in line 42 and insert ("a hirer, after the determination of the hire-purchase agreement or the bailment in any manner whatsoever, is subject to a liability which exceeds the liability to which he would have been subject if the agreement had been determined by him under this Act").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Duty of owners and sellers to supply documents and information.

6.—(1) At any time before the final payment has been made under a hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement the owner or seller, as the case may be, shall within four days after receipt of notice in writing from the hirer or buyer and upon tender to him by the hirer or buyer, as the case may be, of the sum of one shilling for expenses supply to the hirer or buyer a copy of any memorandum or note of the agreement, together with a statement signed by the owner or seller or his agent showing—

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the owner or seller, as the case may be," and insert "any person entitled to enforce the agreement against the hirer or buyer." The noble Lord said: This clause raises a difficulty about the use of the word "owner." This word is used as meaning three different persons: the person who actually lets the goods to the hirer, the person who, during the currency of the agreement is entitled to enforce the terms of payment, and the person who at the conclusion of the agreement is entitled to recover the goods from the hirer. The object of this Amendment is to remove the word "owner" altogether and to substitute "any person entitled to enforce the agreement against the hirer or buyer." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 14, leave out from ("agreement") to ("shall") and insert ("any person entitled to enforce the agreement against the hirer or buyer").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 15, have out from ("after") to the second ("the") in line 17 and insert ("he has received a notice in writing from the hirer or buyer and the hirer or buyer has tendered to him").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment also is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 20, leave out ("owner or seller") and insert ("the said person ").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

These succeeding Amendments recast subsection (2) in order to include any person taking proceedings under the clause.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 34, leave out from the beginning to ("then") in line 35 and insert: In the event of a failure without reasonable cause to comply with the last foregoing subsection").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 36, leave out from the beginning to ("and") in line 40 and insert: ("(a) no person shall be entitled to enforce the agreement against the hirer or buyer or to enforce any contract of guarantee relating to the agreement, and, in the case of a hire-purchase agreement, the owner shall not be entitled to enforce any right to recover the goods from the hirer;").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 6, leave out ("owner or seller") and insert ("defaulter").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Duty of hirer to give information of where-abouts of goods.

7.—(1) While a hire-purchase agreement is in force with respect to any goods which have not been recovered by or ordered to be delivered to the owner, the hirer shall, on receipt of a request in writing from the owner, inform the owner where the goods are at the time when the information is given or, if it is sent by post, at the time of posting.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to and including "owner," where that word first occurs, and insert "Where by virtue of a hire-purchase agreement a hirer is under a duty to keep the goods comprised in the agreement in his possession or control,". The noble Lord said: It is common form in hire-purchase agreements to insert a provision that the hirer shall keep the goods comprised in the agreement in his possession and under his control. The clause requires the hirer, during the currency of the agreement, to inform the owner where the goods are. It is felt that the object of the clause would be clearer if the sanctions imposed by Clause 7 were confined to a case where the hirer is required by the agreement to keep the goods in his possession and control.

Amendment moved— Page 7, leave out from the beginning of line 8 to the second ("the") in line 10 and insert ("Where by virtue of a hire-purchase agreement a hirer is under a duty to keep the goods comprised in the agreement in his possession or control,").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Conditions and warranties to be implied in hire-purchase agreements.

8.—(1) In every hire-purchase agreement there shall be—

LORD AMULREE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): (d) an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality, provided that if the hirer has examined the goods or a sample thereof, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed.

The noble Lord said: This is an addition to the conditions and warranties that appear in the Bill, and introduces the provision that there shall be an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. The object is to prevent the unscrupulous dealer from delivering wholly "dud" goods and still being able to escape all responsibility by including in the hire-purchase agreement a clause that the hirer must go on paying whatever happens. There has been a great deal of trouble with this practice among certain sections of the community. Under the Sale of Goods Act the seller is bound, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, by certain warranties and conditions as to the quality of the goods and as to their fitness for the purpose for which they are intended. In particular the seller is bound in certain cases by a condition that the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are intended, and secondly, that they are of merchantable quality.

Some hire-purchase agreements, if not all, are sales within the meaning of the Act, but it is a common practice to insert in written hire-purchase agreements terms excluding the warranties and conditions implied by the Act. This practice has led to hardships in those cases, which are too frequent, where the hirer does not read the agreement or does not understand it. The clause in its present form provides that the owner is to be bound, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, by a condition that the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are intended, unless the owner has, before the agreement was made, clearly informed the hirer that he does not desire the conditions to attach. It has been suggested by many persons familiar with hire-purchase trading, and in particular by certain County Court Judges, that it is desirable to provide that in all hire-purchase agreements, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, there shall be a condition that the goods are of merchantable quality. The effect of inserting the proposed provision will therefore be to secure for the hirer some protection which, in the case of a cash sale, is generally, in effect, secured for the buyer by the terms of the Sale of Goods Act.

That Act imposes a condition as to merchantable quality only in those cases where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description. Under the proposed new provision the condition will attach whether or not the goods are bought by description. There is, however, a saving, analogous to savings contained in the Sale of Goods Act, for a case where the hirer has examined the goods or a sample thereof. In that case the condition will not apply as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed. The Amendment, as has been pointed out by various County Court Judges, is a great improvement to the Bill, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 7, line 29, at end insert: ("(d) an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality, provided that if the hirer has examined the goods or a sample thereof, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which the examination ought to have revealed.")—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD WALERAN

It is with great respect that I rise to object to the Amendment, but I feel that the promoters of the Bill and the Law Officers' Department have not realised quite what they are doing. The wording of the Amendment sets out a measure of guarantee. It is the custom and the practice of many trades, in selling new, not second-hand, goods, to contract out of all guarantees expressed or implied by the law, and though this might be thought a hardship to the buyer it usually only applies to goods of which the serviceability depends upon their proper use and maintenance by the buyer. It will be found that the more this feature is present in the nature of the goods, so the difficulty of guarantee or warranty gets less. The warranties in the Sale of Goods Act, from which I believe this Amendment is extracted, puts the onus of warranty on the vendor but no onus of maintenance or proper use on the buyer. It is therefore inevitable that mechanical goods subject to damage by misuse should be sold without legal warranties.

This is very much so in the case of motor cars; and I could quote to your Lordships, if you would allow me, an extract from a standard form of guarantee by a well-known motor manufacturer, which says: The conditions of sale under which the car and/or chassis has been sold by the company provides that the purchaser does not rely on the skill or judgment of the company and that the purchaser bought the car and/or chassis without any warranty as to quality, fitness, merchantableness or description and that all implied warranties, conditions and liabilities which exist either by Common Law Statute or otherwise were excluded. The guarantee hereby given therefore excludes all the said implied warranties, conditions and liabilities. Take the case of a second-hand motor car. Your Lordships, I am quite certain, know that about three second-hand motor cars are to-day sold for one new one, and that if you kill the sale of secondhand motor cars you are defeating the sale of new cars. The motor industry is one of the three biggest industries in the country, and I think I am right in saying that one in ten of all insured employed people, excluding agricultural labourers, are employed in or indirectly by the motor industry. Therefore you are going greatly to affect employment in this country. If you require a warranty on the sale of second-hand motor cars by hire-purchase, which no manufacturer or agent would give on a new motor car, you are making the sale of such secondhand cars impossible.

All the arguments apply to secondhand motor cars, and although in years to come new cars may be sold at under £50—we are gradually getting down to lower prices—it has been for a long time the practice in the trade to sell secondhand cars as "tried," "seen" or "approved" or "sold with all faults." In fact the motor trade say in effect that they are unable to give such a guarantee on a £50 motor car, and the buyer himself naturally realises that he takes a certain amount of risk. It is thought that this subsection would provide the hire-purchaser of a second-hand car with an opportunity of trying to avoid his obligations, if he has the slightest mechanical trouble, and the situation will undoubtedly arise that the buyer of a £50 motor car by hire-purchase will be getting a measure of guarantee which, as I have said, he would not get if he paid cash for a new car, and even a new £2,000 motor car.

I do not want to take up your Lordships' time, but I think it should be borne in mind that while the measure of guarantee proposed can be given with many new articles, where moving parts and parts which create friction are not present, goods of a mechanical nature, which have been used for a considerable time—the buyer of a car for £50 is fully aware of this—are wholly different. There may be, and often are, in cars latent defects which only become apparent after a lot of use, and an examination such as is mentioned in the proposed paragraph would not disclose them. Therefore I feel that this provision does great hardship to the sale of second-hand cars, and opens the door very widely to the unscrupulous buyer of a second-hand car, by enabling him to misuse it and then to throw it back on to the vendor. I ask the promoters of this Bill to think seriously about this matter.

LORD SANDHURST

I should not like your Lordships to think that the motor trade is the only one which is crying out against this clause. There are other trades as well, and one of them—I am not sure whether the farmer calls himself a trader or not—is the farmer, because he sees in this clause an end to his opportunity of buying expensive farming machinery second-hand. The subsection is going to put an absolute stop to the sale of all second-hand farming machinery, lighting sets, and similar second-hand mechanical goods, simply because no hire-purchase firm will then touch them. It is going to be a very serious thing, and I suggest that the noble Lord in charge of this Bill should give consideration to one of three suggestions. The first is that he should withdraw this provision altogether, which is I think the more reasonable course, because in my opinion everything that the noble Lord wants is contained in subsection (2) of Clause 8. I think that gives him all the protection that he can possibly want. If he is not prepared to withdraw the Amendment altogether I suggest to him one of two alternatives—either to add words that will exclude from the subsection any mechanical goods, anything which works mechanically, or else exclude from the clause anything which is second-hand. If he would give consideration to these suggestions and give us an assurance that he will do his best to see what can be done on the Report stage, I think we should be quite satisfied.

LORD AMULREE

I am very much obliged to the two noble Lords. I shall be very glad to consider the suggestions they have made, and if the Amendment is accepted I will take care that it may be fully considered in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has mentioned, at a subsequent stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:

Evidence of adverse detention in action by owner to recover possession of the goods.

". Where, in an action by an owner of goods which have been let under a hire-purchase agreement to enforce a right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer, the owner proves that, before the commencement of the action and after the right to recover possession of the goods accrued, the owner made a request in writing to the hirer to surrender the goods, the hirer's possession of the goods shall, for the purpose of the owner's claim to recover possession thereof, be deemed to be adverse to the owner.

Nothing in this section shall affect a claim for damages for conversion."

The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with a matter which does not seem to have been dealt with in the Bill—namely, the evidence of adverse detention in action by the owner to recover possession of the goods. The nature of the evidence which an owner must adduce in order to establish a claim to recover his goods from a person who wrongly detains them is not easy to define. According to an old case in 1846, what the owner must establish is an "adverse detention" on the part of the defendant. Unfortunately, different Judges have taken different views as to the amount of evidence which is necessary in order to prove an "adverse detention" on the part of the defendant. Many Courts are unwilling to assume that the detention is adverse unless there is clear evidence of a demand for the return of the goods on the part of the owner and a refusal to deliver them on the part of the defendant. Evidence of such a refusal is often difficult to procure, and in consequence of this owners have had difficulty in enforcing their rights to recover goods from persons who hold them unlawfully.

Under the Bill an owner is prohibited from enforcing his right to recover the goods from the hirer otherwise than by action after a certain proportion of the price has been paid. It would clearly be oppressive if an owner, who is required to bring an action in order to recover his goods, were unable to bring the action because the hirer had not in so many words refused to deliver them. Moreover, even in cases where less than one-third of the price has been paid, and accordingly the owner is subject to no restriction in respect of his extra judicial remedies for the recovery of the goods, it seems absurd that a hirer by not refusing to deliver the goods should make it impossible for the owner to bring an action to recover them. What is proposed is that if the owner, after his right to recover the goods has accrued, requests the hirer in writing to return the goods, and the request is not complied with, the hirer's possession of the goods shall be deemed to be adverse to the owner. It is hoped that this clause will bring a much needed uniformity into the practice of County Courts.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10:

Restriction of owner's right to recover possession of goods otherwise than by action.

10.—(1) Where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement and one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid, whether in pursuance of a judgment or otherwise, the owner shall not enforce any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than by action.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1) after "otherwise," where that word first occurs, to insert "or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer or any guarantor." The noble Lord said: The effect of the Amendment is to introduce an additional restriction on the owner's right to recover possession of goods otherwise than by action.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 19, after ("otherwise") insert ("or tendered by or on behalf of the hirer or any guarantor").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "otherwise than by action," and insert: unless and until he shall have first served or caused to be served upon the hirer a notice specifying the breach of contract or other matter giving rise to such right to resume possession as aforesaid and in the case of any breach of contract in so far as such breach is then capable of remedy such notice to remedy shall require the hirer within seven days of the service of such notice to remedy such breach, and if such breach of contract is remedied by or on behalf of the hirer within such period of seven days as aforesaid, then such right to resume possession as aforesaid shall thereupon lapse. Provided always that at a time within seven days after the service of such notice the hirer may apply to the Court for relief, at the same time declaring where the goods comprised in the agreement are, and after any such application for relief has been made to the Court, no further step to resume possession either by way of legal process or otherwise or to compel payment of any sum due or accruing due by the hirer shall be made or commenced by the owner, and unless the goods are used by the hirer for the purpose of his trade, calling, or profession the hirer shall not remove or permit to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Court to which such application is made the goods or any part thereof, until the application by the hirer has been heard or otherwise disposed of. But if the hirer does not apply for relief as aforesaid the owner shall be entitled to take such steps as he thinks fit to recover possession of the goods.

The noble Earl said: I confess I am not very much in love with this Bill at all, and when I am informed of the place of its birth and its parentage it fills me with less love than I had before. I think that the principle of ownership will be somewhat seriously endangered if this Bill goes through without some of the Amendments which I have put down. I have placed them on the Order Paper on behalf of the National Association of Cycle and Motor Cycle Traders, which is a large and important body, and by no means a rich body. Let me explain the exact intention of the first of these Amendments. What it comes to is this. Under the Bill the owner cannot recover possession of the article if one-third of the price has been paid without an action in the Court, and that seems to me very unfair. The owner's position ought not to be made weaker in law, and if my Amendment were accepted it would mean that the law would remain unaltered as far as the owner is concerned, but the hirer would be given the right to go to the Court himself and plead special circumstances for consideration in order that the law might not operate against him.

Your Lordships should bear in mind that the margin of profit made by cycle and motor-cycle traders is extremely small, and if the vendor is to be obliged to go to Court before he can recover an article where there has been a default in payment, he will be put to very great expense. It should not be overlooked that if a hirer cannot afford to keep up his payments it is very unlikely that he will be able to pay the owner's costs. What I suggest is that in cases where the hirer, probably owing to misfortune or through losing his employment, is unable to keep up his payments, before the owner can recover possession of the article in question the hirer should put up a special case in Court, where it would be considered. If the Bill is allowed to pass as it stands, and the onus of taking legal proceedings is left to the owner— who, after all, has a right to the article because the agreement has not been kept—you will be dealing a very serious blow at this trade and putting a very unfair onus upon a perfectly honest and probably by no means a rich man, who very likely is only a working man himself.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 20, leave out ("otherwise than by action") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD AMULREE

The substance of this Amendment is taken from Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill as it was introduced in another place, under which the hirer could apply for relief. The Committee in another place considered the clause and came to the conclusion that such a provision was surrounded by many obstacles, and those obstacles were removed at the instance of the Government in order to make the Bill more workable. It seems both more workable and better for the owner that the owner should be allowed to commence his action without any condition precedent except a simple demand, and that it what the clause provides. The owner makes a demand, and if it is not complied with he may bring his action into Court. Accordingly all the provisions in the original Bill relating to this matter were dropped, and this simple provision was substituted. The Amendment attempts to put back the provisions which were removed in another place. I would point out that there is nothing to prevent an owner endeavouring to come to some amicable arrangement with the hirer if he wishes to do so. To make it a statutory obligation on the owner before taking action to serve notice on the hirer specifying the breach of contract is unnecessary and undesirable.

But the real point of the noble Earl's Amendment, to which he has not called attention, is in the last sentence, which reads: But if the hirer does not apply for relief as aforesaid the owner shall be entitled to take such steps as he thinks fit to recover possession of the goods. If that were passed it would make the Bill quite ineffective. It simply means that if the hirer does not apply to the Court the owner can step in and carry off the goods.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

With regard to the noble Lord's last criticism, that is the whole purpose of the Amend- ment. I want to enable the owner to take such steps as he may think fit to recover the article. I do not see any objection to allowing the owner to recover the goods if the hirer does not put in a plea for relief. What can be the objection?

LORD SANDHURST

I think we are losing sight to a certain extent of the value of this Amendment through lack of appreciation of the type of people whom it most concerns. The cycle trader is nine times out of ten an ex-mechanic, who possibly had a certain amount of training in the local garage, managed to collect a few tips, saved the money, and set himself up in trade, and that is his capital. When he starts, in order to compete with the bigger shops in the area he has to supply bicycles to his fellow-labourers on hire-purchase terms. There are three methods by which he can do that. In the first place, he can buy a machine from the factory, and really, to use ordinary language, he lends the machine, which is his capital, to his fellow-labourer on condition that his fellow-labourer pays him so much a week. Few of them manage to raise enough money. They have two or three machines out on hire-purchase in that way. If the trade gets bigger the man has to get money either from the hire-purchase people or from the people who manufacture the bicycle. In either of these cases, if there is any default on the part of the hirer, the machine is thrown back on to the man who sold it and he is made to pay the unpaid portion either to the hire-purchase company or to the makers of the cycle.

Under this Bill this position arises. A bicycle costs, say, £5 10s. in the first

instance, of which half has been paid and £2 15s. is still left to pay. The fellow who bought the bicycle gets a job fifty, one hundred, or possibly one hundred and fifty miles away, goes off with his bicycle to the job, and then stops payment because the bicycle supplier is not at his elbow to dig the money out of him every week. Now you are putting that wretched mechanic in this position. In order to get back his bicycle on which he has made a very small profit he has got to go to law to get back his own property. Surely the logical thing to do is to say that the man who has not paid for what he is using should go to law and get permission to have it without payment!

LORD AMULREE

The object of this clause is to protect the hirer who gets into difficulties, and it provides protection if the hirer has paid one-third of the hire-purchase price. The clause goes on to provide that where this amount has been paid, and the matter comes before the Court, the Court may postpone the payments in order to assist the hirer to make good the instalments, and so on. If the Amendment is carried it would be contrary to the principle of the Bill, which is that, one-third of the price having been paid, the goods cannot be recovered except by action. That is fundamental to the Bill, and therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD BARNBY

I hope we may have an assurance that the point now raised will receive consideration at the next stage of the Bill.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.
Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Mersey, V.	Meston, L.
	Samuel, V.	Mottistone, L.
Zetland, M.		St. Levan, L.
	Amulree, L. [Teller.]	Snell, L.
Feversham, E.	Arnold, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Cadman, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Lucan, E.	Cautley, L.
Mansfield, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Templemore, L.
Munster, E.	Holden, L.	Wardington, L.
	Mancroft, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Bridgeman, V.	Marks, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.
Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]	Bertie of Thame, V.	Kenilworth, L.
Onslow, E.	Elibank, V.	O'Hagan, L.
Radnor, E.		Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]
	Barnby, L.	Teynham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD AMULREE

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 22, leave out ("the").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 32, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") in line 34 and insert ("guarantor").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply in any case in which the hirer has determined the agreement or the bailment by virtue of any right vested in him. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to provide that the provisions of this section shall not apply in any case in which the hirer has determined the agreement by virtue of any right vested in him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Powers of Court in actions by owners to recover possession of goods.

11.—(1) An action by an owner against a hirer to recover possession of goods in respect of which one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid as aforesaid shall be commenced in the County Court for the district in which the hirer resides or carries on business or resided or carried on business at the date on which he last made a payment under the hire-purchase agreement, and while such an action is pending the owner shall not take any step to enforce payment of any sum due under the hire-purchase agreement or under a contract to guarantee the payment of any sums so payable, except by claiming the sum in the said action.

(4) On the hearing of the action the Court may, without prejudice to any other power, exercise such one or more of the following powers as the Court, having regard to all the circumstances, thinks just, that is to say:—

1. (a) may determine the hire-purchase agreement if it has not previously been determined;
2. (b) may, in its absolute discretion, order the goods or any part of the goods to be 542 delivered to the owner without giving the hirer an option to pay the value thereof;
3. (c) may postpone the operation of any such order subject to the payment by the hirer or a guarantor of a sum equal to the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price at such times and in such amounts as the Court, having regard to the means of the person against whom the order is made, thinks just, and subject to the fufilment of such other conditions by the hirer or a guarantor as the Court thinks just;
4. (d) may make an order transferring to the hirer the owner's title to any goods in respect of which an order has been postponed as aforesaid, upon fulfilment of the said conditions; and
5. (e) may make an order transferring to the hirer the owner's title to any part of the goods, if the Court thinks just so to do having regard to the value of the goods, the amount of the hire-purchase price paid by or on behalf of the hirer and the extent of the depreciation of the remainder of the goods;

and the Court may revoke or vary any order made under this section.

(5) The Court may, in calculating for the purposes of the foregoing subsection the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price of goods, deduct therefrom the amount of any damages awarded to the hirer against the owner in the proceedings, and if that amount equals or exceeds the unpaid balance, shall forthwith make an order transferring the owner's title in the goods to the hirer.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any action by an owner to recover damages in conversion against a hirer in respect of a wrongful disposition of the goods.

LORD AMULREE

The first Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 39, leave out from the beginning of the clause to ("one-third") in line 40 and insert: ("Where in any case to which the last foregoing section applies an owner commences an action to enforce a right to recover possession of goods from a hirer after").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert: Any action or proceedings taken by any party in connection with any matter arising under or out of a hire-purchase agreement shall he commenced in the County Court for the district in which the goods comprised in such agreement were delivered, and while such an action is pending the owner shall not take any step to enforce payment of any sum due under the hire-purchase agreement or under a contract to guarantee the payment of any sums so payable except by claiming the sum in the said action.

The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept it. As the Bill stands at present, proceedings shall be started in the County Court for the district in which the hirer resides or carried on his business at the date on which he last made a payment. This is likely to cause a great deal of confusion, and in my view it is very unfair that the choice of the County Court where the case is to be tried should be made to suit the convenience of the hirer rather than the owner, who is the person who stands to lose as a result of the transaction. I suggest in this Amendment that the proceedings shall he commenced in the County Court for the district in which the goods were delivered, and that while such an action is pending the owner shall not take any steps to enforce payment of any sum due under the hire-purchase agreement. Surely for the convenience of the owner, and both in law and equity, it is only right that the proceedings should be in a County Court that is convenient to the owner of the goods. Suppose the owner has to travel all the way from London to the North of England because the hirer has gone to live there. In such a case he would not only lose some days of valuable time, but would have to undergo a long journey. That is very hard upon him, and I hope therefore that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this very harmless Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is not acceptable to the promoters of the Bill. One of the objects of the Bill is to enable proceedings to be taken where the hirer lives or where he has carried on business. During the proceedings in another place it was insisted all through that the action must be brought where the hirer resides, and it would be hopeless to try to get another place to carry an Amendment such as the noble Earl has proposed. Furthermore, the district where the goods are delivered may not be the most convenient district. They may be delivered far from where the hirer resides, and even from where the owner carries on business. In that case the proposal of the noble Earl would cause much inconvenience to both parties. Moreover, this subsection meets with the approval of the vast majority of the traders' associations. In fact, of the twenty-seven traders' associations consulted, all agreed with the subsection as it appears in the Bill with the exception of the association for which the noble Earl speaks.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It seems to me rather a peculiar precedent to set up. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said it would be quite impossible for another place to accept this Amendment. I protest that this House is quite free from another place, and that we are entitled to pass any Amendment we like regardless of the fact that another place may not accept it.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I confess I have not paid much attention to the Bill hitherto, and I rise rather late in your Lordships' House this evening after I have discovered that the number of Amendments on the Paper is greater by two pages than the whole Bill, which surprises me a great deal. I confess that I do not understand this great tenderness, as shown in the opposition to the last Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, and to this Amendment, towards a man who, may be, has paid only one-third of the purchase price and is a defaulter for two-thirds. Why should he be treated with such extraordinary tenderness as to have the necessary action taken, not in the place convenient, or probably convenient, to the man who has sold him the goods but to himself, the defaulter? I think that is contrary to every principle of equity. After all, the next thing we shall have will be that those who have committed motor car offences will ask to have their convenience suited by their cases being tried at their own places of residence and not in the districts where they have committed the offences.

On Question, Whether subsection (1) shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.
De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)	Bridgeman, V.	Marks, L.
	Mersey, V.	Meston, L.
		Snell, L.
Zetland, M.	Amulree, L. [Teller.]	Strabolgi, L.
	Arnold, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Birkenhead, E.	Cautley, L.
Feversham, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Templemore, L.
Lucan, E.	Holden, L. [Teller.]	Wardington, L.
Munster, E.	Mancroft, L.	Wigan, L, (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.
Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]	Bertie of Thame, V.	Kenilworth, L.
Onslow, E.		St. Levan, L.
Radnor, E.	Harlech, L.	Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]
		Teynham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 41, after ("paid") insert ("or tendered") and after ("aforesaid") insert ("the action").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("the") and insert ("after the action has been commenced").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 4, leave out from ("under") to ("except") in line 5 and insert ("any contract of guarantee relating thereto").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 8, leave out ("Rules of Court") and insert ("County Court Rules").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 9, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") in line 10 and insert ("guarantor").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 11, leave out ("in accordance with Rules of Court").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 12, leave out ("any such") and insert ("the").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

There is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 12, leave out ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6) and insert:

"(4) On the hearing of the action the Court may, without prejudice to any other power,—

1. (a) make an order for the specific delivery of all the goods to the owner; or
2. (b) make an order for the specific delivery of all the goods to the owner and postpone the operation of the order on condition that the hirer or any guarantor pays the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price at such times and in such amounts as the Court, having regard to the means of the hirer and of any guarantor, thinks just, and subject to the fufilment of such other conditions by the hirer or a guarantor as the Court thinks just; or
3. (c) make an order for the specific delivery of a part of the goods to the owner and for the transfer to the hirer of the owner's title to the remainder of the goods.

(5) No order shall be made under paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection unless the hirer satisfies the Court that the goods are in his possession or control at the time when the order is made.

(6) The Court shall not make an order transferring to the hirer the owner's title to a part of the goods unless it is satisfied that the amount which the hirer has paid in respect of the hire-purchase price exceeds the price of that part of the goods by at least one-third of the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price.

(7) Where damages have been awarded against the owner in the proceedings, the Court may treat the hirer as having paid in respect of the hire-purchase price, in addition to the actual amount paid, the amount of the damages or such part thereof as the Court thinks fit, and thereupon the damages shall accordingly be remitted either in whole or in part.

(8) In this section the expression 'order for the specific delivery of the goods' means an order for the delivery of the goods to the owner without giving the hirer an option to pay their value, and the expression 'price' in relation to any goods means such part of the hire-purchase price as is assigned to those goods by the note or memorandum of the hire-purchase agreement or, if no such assignment is made, such part of the hire-purchase price as the Court may determine.

(9) If at any time before the hearing of an action to which this section applies the owner has recovered possession of a part of the goods, the references in subsection (4) hereof to all the goods shall be construed as references to all the goods which the owner has not recovered, and, if the parties have not agreed upon an adjustment of the hire-purchase price in respect of the goods so recovered, the Court may for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (4) hereof make such reduction of the hire-purchase price and of the unpaid balance thereof as the Court thinks just.

(10) Where an owner has recovered a part of the goods let under a hire-purchase agreement, and the recovery was effected in contravention of the last foregoing section, the provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any action by the owner to recover the remainder of the goods."

The noble Lord said: I move to leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6) and to substitute the new subsections printed on the Amendment Paper in order to make clear the object of the Bill in this respect. The first object is to leave the County Court in no doubt as to the orders which it may make. The second object is to ensure that no postponement order shall be made in favour of a hirer who has wrongfully disposed of goods. When a hirer has paid less than one-third and there is default and the owner has to take proceedings the County Court Judge may make an order subject to its operation being postponed. That is a postponement order, and where that is the position one of the objects of the clause is to make it clear that if the hirer has disposed of goods wrongfully he will not get the benefit of the clause at all. The third object is to secure that when an order is made there shall be adequate allowance for depreciation, and the fourth object is to provide for the case where the owner has recovered possession of a part of the goods before the hearing.

The new subsection (4) which I propose contains three paragraphs which make quite clear what the County Court can do. Subsection (5) makes provision that the hirer must satisfy the Court that the goods are still in his possession or control. The next subsection provides that: the Court shall not make an order transferring to the hirer the owner's title to a part of the goods unless it is satisfied that the amount which the hirer has paid in respect of the hire-purchase price exceeds the price of that part of the goods by at least one-third of the unpaid balance. Suppose, for example, that proceedings are taken and the Court makes an order for the return of part of the goods and the hirer retains possession of the rest. The question is what part of the purchase price is to be paid for the discharge of the agreement in respect of the hire of the goods which the hirer has had all through the period of hiring and also in respect of depreciation. That might mean a very prolonged inquiry. It might mean that the County Court judge himself would have to assess the value of the goods and arrive at the depreciation. It might mean, if the parties were at arm's length, that the owner would have to apply for an order to inspect the goods. All that would mean expense.

This proposal which is now before your Lordships is the result of an agreement reached between the promoters of the Bill and the various associations of hire-purchase traders. It is proposed that one-third shall be taken as the value of the depreciated article, so that when an order is made the hirer will take so much of the goods as are paid for and one-third of the amount still unpaid will be deducted from the sums paid. May I give an example? Take £99 as the amount of the hire-purchase price. The hirer has paid £66; then he fails to keep up the instalments and proceedings are taken under this subsection. The hirer having paid £66, that leaves £33 still unpaid. One-third of that is £11. You deduct that fir from £66, and the hirer then gets £55 worth of goods and the owner would get £44 worth of goods, making up the £99. That is the effect. I do not know that I need say anything about the remaining provisions. It is all quite clear. Subsection (8) deals with the definition and Subsection (9) deals with the cases which arise under that particular subsection.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 19, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (4) at the end of paragrah (c), to insert "Provided always that such payment shall be completed within a period of two years from the date of such order." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I think it is only justice and very little to ask in the interest of the owner. One desires to put sonic reasonable limit to the discretion of the County Court Judge As the Bill stands at present there is no limit to which a sentimental County Court judge may not go. I feel that some slight curtailment should be made to the amount of discretion which may be used. If the words which I suggest were added there would be a safeguard. The Bill at present gives the County Court judge complete discretion and he could in fact order some nominal instalments. For instance, it is quite possible that he may, in sentimental humour, order sonic very small payment, such as sixpence a month or even less. It is submitted that the provision in the Amendment is both clear and just, and, I suggest, reasonable. I hope that the noble Lords in charge of the Bill will at all events admit that it is very little to ask, that the Bill should state a definite period of time within which the owner shall have a reasonable chance of recovering the goods or the money due to him. There have been many cases, of which perhaps the best known is the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, in which tremendous discretion is given to the Judge, with very bad results in many cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 37, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment would not have the intended effect and would also spoil the effect of any discretion which the County Court Judge will have in dealing with these cases. Many hire-purchase agreements extend over a period of five years. Suppose the hirer had paid one-third and proceedings were taken against him in the County Court, and the Judge had jurisdiction to postpone payment for two years; the hirer would then be in a worse position than he is under the agreement. Under an Amendment I propose later, if your Lordships accept it, there is a provision that any order of this kind may be reviewed from time to time. If the circumstances of the hirer improve, there is no reason why the County Court judge should not review the decision to which he has already come and order more frequent payments. On the other hand many owners—indeed, the vast majority of owners—take the view that they do not want the goods back; they want the money. They have found from experience that by giving time for the hirer to pay, he pays in the long run. Any attempt to interfere with the discretion of the County Court Judge would be most serious, and I cannot accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, pointed out in one of his arguments that same agreements lasted for five years. That is quite true, but this paragraph does not deal with the whole of the hire-purchase transaction but only with the unpaid contributions. That is to say, if a man gets in arrear with five or six monthly payments, this paragraph only deals with those payments and not with any subsequent payments. It is not at all unreasonable to ask that those should be paid up within a period of two years.

LORD AMULREE

I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension. If the matter comes before a County Court Judge, he makes an order for delivery-up of the specific goods, but he may postpone its operation, in order to allow the hirer time to pay. He may make an order that the hirer should pay so much a month. It may well be that if the discretion of the Judge were restricted to two years, that would make it worse for the hirer than under the agreement.

LORD ARNOLD

I would venture to express the hope that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. The position into which we are getting is a very serious one from the point of view of the progress and future of this Bill. The Bill comes from another place, I think it is true to say, after most careful examination and prolonged negotiation, as an agreed Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, explained on the Motion to go into Committee that the Amendments in his name were very largely drafting Amendments, or at any rate were Amendments which I think it is correct to say should be regarded as non-controversial. There may be Amendments which are desirable. I am not speaking for the moment on the pros and cons of this Amendment, but we have got to a stage of the Session where it is very dangerous to insert Amendments into the Bill which may lead to controversy when the Bill goes down to another place.

After all, this is not a Government Bill, although it has received the approval of the Government, as I understand, and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor spoke in terms of warm approval of the Bill as a whole. Any Bill of this nature must in the end be more or less of a compromise and be an agreed measure. But if it were desired by any noble Lord who was opposed to it on some particular ground, strongly to press two or three Amendments which in relation to the Bill as a whole had no great importance, it might well happen that the Bill, after all that has been done to it, would not in the end pass. I do not think the noble Lord would like to take the responsibility of that happening. Your Lordships know the rules of this House as well as I do. The attendance now has become very small, and if we have further Divisions it may mean the adjournment of the debate, and then it would be impossible to say what would happen.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I think the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, made a mistake in saying that the other place gave very careful consideration to this Bill. Otherwise how is it that there are so many Amendments, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, pointed out, occupy more pages than the Bill itself?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

In these circumstances perhaps a little guidance by the Paymaster-General would be welcome!

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

After Clause it I think the noble Lord has two new clauses, and I imagine that he will move the first of them first: that is to say, the one with the marginal note on page 9 to the end of page 10. The next one will be on page 11 of the Marshalled List.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause to insert the following new clause:

"Effect of postponement of operation of an order for specific delivery of goods to the owner.

.—(1) While the operation of an order for the specific delivery of goods to the owner is postponed under the last foregoing section, the hirer shall be deemed to be a bailee of the goods under and on the terms of the hire-purchase agreement:

Provided that—

1. (a) no further sum shall be or become payable by the hirer or a guarantor on account of the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price, except in accordance with the terms of the order, and
2. (b) the Court may make such further modification of the terms of the hire-purchase agreement and of any contract of guarantee relating thereto as the Court considers necessary having regard to the variation of the terms of payment.

(2) If while the operation of an order for the specific delivery of the goods to the owner is so postponed the hirer or a guarantor fails to comply with any condition of the postponement or with any term of the agreement as varied by the Court, or wrongfully disposes of the goods, the owner shall not take any civil proceedings against the hirer or guarantor otherwise than by making an application to the Court by which the order was made:

Provided that in the case of a breach of any condition relating to the payment of the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price it shall not be necessary for the owner to apply to the Court for leave to execute the order, unless the Court has so directed.

(3) When the unpaid balance of the hire-purchase price has been paid in accordance with the terms of the order the owner's title to the goods shall vest in the hirer.

(4) The Court may at any time during the postponement of the operation of such an order as aforesaid—

1. (a) vary the conditions of the postponement and make such further modification of the hire-purchase agreement and of any contract of guarantee relating thereto as the Court considers necessary having regard to the variation of the conditions of the postponement;
2. (b) revoke the postponement;
3. (c) make an order, in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing section, for the specific delivery of a part of the goods of the owner and for the transfer to the hirer of the owner's title to the remainder of the goods."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause. Its object is to remove all doubt, and to do so it is thought necessary to define specifically the relations of the parties to each other and to the goods during the period of postponement of the order. Failure to do this would give rise to great difficulties. For example, would the hirer be a bailee of the goods for the purpose of the law of larceny? What would be the position of the hirer in the case of a postponement order arising under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in the hiring of a taxicab? And, thirdly, what would be the position of the owner where the clause dealing with the payment of instalments is suspended but the other clauses still continue?

Amendment moved— After Clause 11 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has a second new clause to propose. He moves it with the omission of the word "out" after "paid" in line 4 and of "immediate" in paragraph (a) before "specific."

LORD AMULREE moved to insert after Clause 11:

Powers of the Court to deal with payments arising on determination of hire-purchase agreements.

".—(1) Where a hire-purchase agreement validly provides for the payment by the hirer on or after the determination of the agreement or the bailment of such sum as, when added to the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the hire-purchase price before the determination, is equal to a fixed amount, and a claim is made in respect of any such sum in an action to which Section eleven of this Act applies, then—

1. (a) if the Court makes an order for the specific delivery of a part of the goods to the owner and the transfer to the hirer of the owner's title to the remainder of the goods, the claim shall be disallowed,
2. (b) if the Court postpones the operation of an order for the specific delivery of the goods to the owner, it shall not entertain the claim unless and until the postponement is revoked, and shall then deal with the claim as if the agreement had just been determined.

(2) Where the hirer or a guarantor has paid or has been ordered to pay any such sum as aforesaid and the owner subsequently seeks to recover the goods in an action to which Section eleven of this Act applies, the Court may treat the said sum as a sum paid or payable, as the case may be, in respect of the hire-purchase price."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Successive hire-purchase agreements between the same parties]:

LORD AMULREE

All the Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

With the assent of your Lordships I will put the Amendments en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 10, line 21, leave out from ("after") to ("a") in line 23, and insert ("one-third of the hire-purchase price has been paid or tendered, the owner makes")

Page 10, line 23, leave out from the second ("agreement") to ("hirer") in line 24, and insert ("with the")

Page 10, line 25, leave out ("both") and leave out ("and additional goods")

Page 10, line 27, leave out ("apply") and insert ("have effect") and leave out from ("agreement") to the end of the clause and insert ("as from the commencement thereof").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Provisions as to bankruptcy of hirer and distress on hirer's premises.

(2) Where an owner, being entitled to recover goods under a term of a hire-purchase agreement or by reason of the termination thereof, has commenced an action claiming the recovery of the goods, the goods shall not thereafter be treated as goods comprised in that hire-purchase agreement for the purposes of Section four of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908.

LORD AMULREE

The first three Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 10, line 31, leave out ("Section eleven of")

Page 10, line 32, leave out ("return") and insert ("specific delivery") and leave out ("the owner") and insert ("any person")

Page 10, line 35, leave out ("owner") and insert ("person").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Where an owner, being entitled to recover goods under a term of a hire-purchase agreement or by reason of the termination thereof, has commenced an action claiming the recovery of the goods, the goods "and insert" After the determination of a hire- purchase agreement, or after an owner, having a right to recover from a hirer goods which have been let under a hire-purchase agreement, has commenced an action to enforce that right, the goods which have been let under the agreement, or the goods claimed in the action, as the case may be,". The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simply to maintain the position of the owner as to distress when the hire-purchase agreement expires.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 39, leave out from the beginning to ("shall") in line 42, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 1, leave out ("thereafter") and insert ("(notwithstanding that the Court in any such action postpones the operation of an order for the specific delivery of the goods to the owner)").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (3) where an owner serves on a landlord or his agent a declaration under Section one of the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908, he shall allow such landlord or his agent to inspect the agreement between the said owner and the hirer or buyer in respect of the goods referred to in the declaration, and if he refuses or fails so to do he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment raises a question of some importance to small property owners. I am informed that the principle has been agreed with hire-purchase traders. I understand that unscrupulous hire-purchase traders have been known to serve declarations upon owners who are distraining for rent, claiming goods, and have refused to produce the hire-purchase agreement in proof of statements made by them in the declaration. In many cases such statements have been found to be false; for example, a statement that the hire-purchase agreement has been made with a person who proves ultimately not to be the person with whom the agreement was in fact made. The intention of the Amendment is to remedy this state of affairs, hire-purchase traders being obliged to produce the agreement. If, as the Amendment provides, hire-purchase traders were obliged to dis- close the terms of the agreement, these false statements could be detected quite easily.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 3, at end, insert the said subsection (3).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is altogether too vague and would be difficult to apply. For example, it does not say if the landlord is to have inspection, and it does not specify the time for inspection, or the place where it may take place. As I have said, altogether the subsection is too vague. Moreover, under the law as it stands any person who makes a claim for goods and makes a false statement in a declaration is liable to be prosecuted. Under the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1908, a number of agreements are classified together. Why should a hire-purchase agreement be singled out for special treatment? I hope my noble friend will consider this. I understand a Departmental Committee is being set up at the present time to consider the whole question of the law of distress, and if my noble friend wants to have a particular amendment of the law that is the place to go to. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I do not propose to press the Amendment at this stage. I am much obliged to my noble friend for having pointed out the snags in the Amendment, which perhaps can be rectified on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:

"Hirer's refusal to surrender goods not to be conversion in certain cases.

.If, whilst by virtue of this Act the enforcement by an owner of a right to recover possession of goods from a hirer is subject to any restriction, the hirer refuses to give up possession of the goods to the owner, the hirer shall not, by reason only of the refusal, be liable to the owner for conversion of the goods."

The noble Lord said: This raises a legal question and I do not think I need go into it, except to say that in the event of refusal to surrender the goods the hirer shall not be liable to the owner for conversion of the goods in certain cases.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 13, to insert:

"Provision for the exercise by inferior courts other than County Courts of the jurisdiction conferred by this Act.

.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the jurisdiction conferred upon County Courts by this Act may be exercised by any inferior court specified in the Order, and whilst any such Order is in force an action to which Section eleven of this Act applies may, where the hirer resides or carries on business within the jurisdiction of that inferior court or resided or carried on business within the jurisdiction of that court at the date on which he last made a payment under the hire-purchase agreement, be commenced either in a County Court in accordance with the provisions of the said section or in that inferior court.

(2) The Order may contain such provisions as appear to His Majesty to be expedient with respect to the rules of court for regulating the procedure to be followed in any such action and may also, where it appears to His Majesty to be necessary, contain provisions authorising the making of such rules.

(3) Any Order made under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order in Council made in like manner."

The noble Lord said: This deals with the question of inferior courts. Under the Bill the County Court is the court of jurisdiction. Clause 11 excludes the jurisdiction not only of the High Court but also of certain inferior courts, such as the Liverpool Court of Passage, and the Salford Hundred Court. The costs in these inferior courts are generally small, and there is no good reason for discriminating against them in favour of the County Court. This new clause would enable His Majesty by Order in Council to confer upon these courts a jurisdiction concurrent with the jurisdiction of the County Courts in their own area. It would then be open to the plaintiff, where the defendant resides within the jurisdiction of that court to commence his action either in that court or in the local County Court.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:

".—(1) If at any time while a hire-purchase agreement is in force the hirer shall remove or change his residence and/or place of business he shall within seven days give notice in writing to the owner of such removal and shall specify in such notice his new residence and/or place of business.

"(2) If a hirer fails without reasonable cause to give the said notice he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to three months' imprisonment or both."

The noble Earl said: I really do hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment. It will be a very great hardship inflicted upon the owner if it is not agreed to. This Bill from beginning to end teems with restrictions on the owner, to the invariable advantage of the hirer. What this new clause proposes is a most reasonable thing—namely, that if at any time while the hire-purchase agreement is in force the hirer removes or changes his residence or place of business, he shall within seven days give notice in writing to the owner specifying his new residence or place of business. There is in Clause 7 certain protection to the owner, but without this new clause Clause 7 will be quite inoperative.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

LORD SANDHURST

I am very anxious that this clause shall be accepted, and I admit that if it is not accepted I shall be beginning to think that I have got into Looking Glass House and by mistake am sitting on the wrong side of the Chamber. The clause has this effect, that if the hirer does a moonlight flit the owner can go to the police at the end of a week and get the police to find the flitter because he will have committed an offence. Without this clause the owner would be in the position of having to try to find the hirer for himself. Let me give an illustration. The other day in a certain place a club steward ran up very large accounts in his own name and suddenly, although he left all his accounts at the club perfectly correct, he found himself in a position where it was a choice between "pinching" the club's money and being "run in" by the local shops, so he quietly disappeared. The shopkeepers cannot get any letter to him because nobody knows where he has gone to, and the only means that these people have of recovering their money is to send private detectives after the man, because the police will not take the matter up. They have been asked, and have refused. It is to get over that difficulty that this clause has been designed. It inflicts no hardship on anybody. On the other hand, it prevents the infliction of a very serious hardship on every owner, and if it is not an acceptable clause 1 cannot believe that anything will ever be acceptable to the promoters.

LORD AMULREE

I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment. It is most undesirable that the whole machinery of the police force should be brought into play if a hirer changes his place of business or his residence. The Bill goes as far as is desirable. We have done our very best to keep down these criminal offences, and it is not reasonable that the hirer should be under obligation to report his private address and to be under a penalty if he fails to do so when the goods are at his place of business. Further, a breach of this obligation to serve notice might be an oversight. Is the unfortunate hirer to be under a penalty for that?

LORD SANDHURST

I think it is a most astounding reply for the promoters of this Bill to say that they are not prepared to discourage theft.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am afraid I am not inclined to support my noble friend on this Amendment, because I think the risks run in the case of a hirer are the same as those run by anybody who sells goods on credit, and if you introduce a new principle in this Bill you ought logically to introduce it in any credit transaction.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 14:

Special provisions as to installation charges.

14.—(1) Where under any hire-purchase agreement the owner is required to carry out any installation and the note or memorandum of the agreement specifies the amount to be paid in respect of the installation, the references in Section four of this Act to one-half of the hire-purchase price and in Sections ten, eleven and twelve of this Act to one-third of the hire-purchase price, shall be construed as references to the aggregate of the said amount and either one-half of the remainder of the hire-purchase price or one-third of the remainder of the hire-purchase price, as the case may be.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), after "agreement," to insert "made after the commencement of this Act." The noble Lord said: This clause has been the subject of a good deal of discussion. On Clause 15 an Amendment is to be moved dealing with the amount which is to be allowed for installation charges in relation to agreements in force at the commencement of the Act. Subsection (1) of this clause deals with agreements under which installations are carried out, and this Amendment is designed to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 15 do not apply in relation to agreements in force at the commencement of the Act.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 4, after ("agreement") insert ("made after the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, in subsection (1), after "specifies," to insert "as part of the hire-purchase price." The noble Lord said: This simply refers to arrangements made as part of the hire-purchase price.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 6, after ("specifies") insert the said words.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 [Application of Act to existing agreements]:

LORD AMULREE

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 11, line 36, after ("ten") insert ("and twelve") and leave out ("it relates") and insert ("they relate") line 39, leave out ("thirteen") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) Where goods have been let under a hire-purchase agreement made before the commencement of this Act, and the owner has, as part of the consideration for the hire-purchase price, carried out in relation to those goods any installation within the meaning of the foregoing section, then, if the owner has served upon the hirer a notice specifying a sum not exceeding the expense actually incurred by the owner in respect of the installation, Sections ten, eleven and twelve of this Act, so far as by virtue of the last foregoing subsection they apply in relation to that agreement, shall, as respects the recovery of possession of goods after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the service of the notice, and as respects actions commenced after the expiration of the said period, have effect as if for the references in the said sections to one-third of the hire-purchase price there were substituted references to the aggre- gate of the said sum and one-third of the amount which remains after deducting that sum from the hire-purchase price.

The noble Lord said: This is the provision to deal with the difficulty mentioned on the preceding clause—namely, the application of the Bill to agreements in force at the commencement of the Act. The scheme under the Amendment is to the effect that after the Act comes into operation the owner may give notice to the hirer separating the installation charges from the charge in respect of the hire-purchase price. He might do that at once or he might not do it at all if all the instalments are paid. If, however, he does give notice, after twenty-eight days installation charges and hire-purchase charges are to be separated, and it is deemed that the agreement has been made after the coining into force of the Act.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Definitions.

16. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires— (b) "Hire-purchase agreement" means an agreement to hire goods under which the hirer is entitled, at his option, to buy the goods at the conclusion of the hiring or under which the property in the goods is to pass to the hirer, subject to the fulfilment by him of conditions prescribed in the agreement; (g) "Contract of guarantee" means a contract whereby a person becomes a surety for the performance by a hirer or buyer, as the case may be, of his obligations under a hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement, and the expressions "to guarantee" and "guarantor" shall be construed accordingly;

LORD AMULREE

The first Amendment on this clause is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 5, leave out from ("requires") to the end of line 8, and insert ("the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say—").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE

The next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line so, at end insert ("have the meanings respectively assigned to them by the Sale of Goods Act, 1893;").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to leave out paragraph (b) and insert: 'Hire-purchase agreement' means an agreement for the bailment of goods under which the bailee may buy the goods or under which the bailor's property in the goods will or may pass to the bailee, and where by virtue of two or more agreements, none of which by itself constitutes a hire-purchase agreement, there is a bailment of goods and either the bailee may buy the goods, or the bailor's property therein will or may pass to the bailee, the agreements shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as a single agreement made at the time when the last of the agreements was made. The noble Lord said: This is merely redrafting the definition of a hire-purchase agreement, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, in paragraph (g), to leave out all words after "means" down to but not including guarantor "and insert" in relation to any hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement, a contract, made at the request express or implied of the hirer or buyer, to guarantee the performance of the hirer's or buyer's obligations under the hire-purchase agreement or credit-sale agreement, and the expression." The noble Lord said: This is simply a definition of "contract of guarantee."

Amendment moved— Page 12, leave out from ("means") in line 40 to ("guarantor") in line 3 on page 13, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved to insert: (2) Where an owner has agreed that any part of the hire-purchase price may be discharged otherwise than by the payment of money, any such discharge shall, for the purposes of Sections four, six, ten, eleven and twelve of this Act, be deemed to be a payment of that part of the hire-purchase price. The noble Lord said: Sometimes the hirer and the owner come to an agreement that a piece of furniture or some other article shall be taken back, and this Amendment is simply to provide that where such a transaction takes place it shall be deemed part of the hire-purchase agreement.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall be agreed to?

LORD BARNBY

Before passing from this clause 1 wish to raise a point, but in deference to the spirit expressed by Lord Arnold I do not wish to move an Amendment and I shall be as brief as I can. I cannot suppress the thought that the statement that this Bill is not controversial has clearly been falsified by the many Amendments brought forward in your Lordships' House. One cannot but regret that a matter so complicated and affecting so large a part of the trade of this country could not have been the subject of a proper Inter-Departmental Committee inquiry or, possibly, a Royal Commission. It is a matter, as I say, of great complexity, affecting a very large volume of the trade of this country, and to have legislation passed introducing complications to the procedure which affects so many aspects of the country's trade is a matter of the greatest concern. It is a very unusual procedure. I do not fail to appreciate that many abuses exist which want correcting, and I recognise that the piloting of this Bill through another place was a matter for great congratulation to its sponsors, but from the way in which the Bill has been discussed this afternoon one realises there are many aspects which are definitely controversial.

One has the anxiety that legislation is being pressed through hurriedly without the consideration which would have been possible, and would have occurred, had it been the subject of inquiry by a proper Committee which would have considered all the many aspects in which this Bill affects the trade of the country. In this particular clause, admittedly from line 11 onwards, the terminology is greatly improved from what it was in the previous draft, but from line 40 onwards an Amendment is being made to meet the position whereby a dealer might in certain circumstances under the original definition have been able to avoid his liability under a guarantee given for the purpose of financing his hire-purchase sale. One realises that this is very complicated, and it is not easy in a few words to deal with the various aspects of what a guarantee involves, but it may well be that where a dealer, for the purpose of financing his agreement, gives a guarantee, he may not at the same time be giving such guarantee at the request, express or implied, of the hirer or buyer. It might have been better if the definition had excluded any contract of guarantee given by the original owner under a hire-purchase agreement or by the owner immediately prior to the passing of title in the goods to a hire-purchase company or by the vendor of the goods under a credit-sale agreement. These words will have sufficed to show the complexity of this thing. Again, in deference to what Lord Arnold has said, I want to be brief, but I do hope these aspects will be considered by the sponsors of the Bill before it proceeds to the next stage.

LORD AMULREE

As the noble Lord knows, there is sometimes difficulty about a contract of guarantee. The Amendment simply introduces this. The hirer goes to a friend and asks him to guarantee. The friend undertakes to guarantee. That is put in plain language to enable the Bill to be better understood and so avoid legal complication.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

LORD AMULREE

This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 18, leave out ("apply") and insert ("extend").—(Lord Amulree.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule: