ALI TAHA, Plaintiff v. G. DELLO STROLOGO & COMPANY, LTD., Defendants
Contract-s-Implied obligation-Hire-purchase agreement-Provision for repair of
motor car
Contract-Parol evidence rule-Subsequent acts of parties offered to show an
implied obligation-Contract unambiguous
Contract-Hire-purchase-Motor car-Provision as to repairs-Whether obli-
gation on owner to be implied
A clause in an agreement for the hire-purchase of a motor car provided
for all repairs to be carried out at the owners' workshops and for parts to
be supplied by the owners. The hirer sued the owners for damages for
failure to supply parts and carry out repairs.
Held: The clause imposed an obligation on the hirer for the benefit of
the owners. It was not necessary, in order to give effect to the common
intention, to imply a corresponding obligation on the owners. The contract
being unambiguous, extrinsic evidence to import such an obligation was in-
admissible.
Action
March 23,1940. Sandes J.: The plaintiff claims £E.90 by way
of damages for the defendants' failure to repair a fiat motor car hired
to him under a hire-purchase agreement dated April 5, 1938. He re-
lies upon clause 4 of that agreement, which provides as follows:
"During the continuance of this agreement all repairs shall be carried
out at the owners' workshops at their usual rates, and all parts requiring
replacement shall be obtained from the owners at their usual prices."
The plaintiffs case is that this clause imposes on the defendants
an obligation, admittedly not express but implied, to repair the car
hired to him. The defendants by their failure to do so have rendered
themselves liable to him in damages. Two issues of law were framed
and argued before the court. The first was whether the clause itself
imposed the implied obligation on which the plaintiff relied. It seems
clear on the cases cited that such an obligation will only be implied in
law where it is necessary, to give effect to what the parties obviously
intended. The clause in question is a subsidiary clause in a hire-
purchase agreement, probably intended to avoid the danger of a lien
for repair arising in favour of a person other than the owners. To say
" Court: Sandes J.
that it imposes an obligation on the defendants to do any repair to the
car is to go far beyond a reasonable interpretation of the clause.
The second point was whether the plaintiff was entitled to call
evidence of the subsequent acts of the parties to import the implied
obligation on which he relied. Again the cases cited quite clearly show
that any such evidence is inadmissible, where the contract itself, as
here, is unambiguous.
This being the case, the basis of the plaintiff's claim fails, and
he cannot claim damages from the defendants.
Judgement for defendants
Plaintiff applied to the Court of Appeal in AC-Petition-211-1940
for leave to appeal as a pauper from the decree of Sandes J. Creed
C.J. in the course of his decision said:
It appears from the applicant's statement that his real ground of
appeal is that in his view by clause 4 of the agreement of April 5,
1938, between himself and the respondents, G. Delio Strologo & Co.
Ltd., the respondents undertook to keep spare parts available for pur-
chase by the hirer at the usual prices, that they did not do so, and
that by their consequent failure to supply spare parts on his request
they have caused him loss. This court sees no reason to think that
on this ground the decree of the learned judge is contrary to law. or
that it is otherwise erroneous or unjust.
Flaxman J. concurred.
Application dismissed