Pearson LJ said: ‘There is no rule of law that in a hire purchase transaction the dealer never is, or always is, acting as agent for the finance company or as agent for the customer.Nevertheless, the dealer is to some extent an intermediary between the customer and the finance company, and he may well have in a particular case some ad hoc agencies to do particular things on behalf of one or the other or, it may be, both of those two parties.’ and ‘In a typical hire purchase transaction the dealer is a party in his own right, selling his car to the finance company, and he is acting primarily on his own behalf and not as general agent for either of the other two parties. There is no need to attribute to him an agency in order to account for his participation in the transaction. Nevertheless the dealer is to some extent an intermediary between the customer and the finance company, and he may well have in a particular case some ad-hoc agencies to do particular things on behalf of one or other or it may be both of those two parties.’
An advocate should draw the attention of the court to the fact that an act relied on by a party is unlawful, if that is the case.
Judges:
Pearson LJ
Citations:
[1965] 2 QB 242, [1964] 1 WLR 423
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Branwhite v Worcester Works Finance Ltd HL 1969
A dealer may for some ad hoc purpose be the agent of a finance company. In relation to a purchase of a motor vehicle through a motor dealer, where the prospective purchaser completes an application for hire purchase in the office of the motor . .
Cited – Norman Hudson v Shogun Finance Ltd CA 28-Jun-2001
A rogue had purchased a car, using a false name to obtain finance. He had then sold it to the defendant. The finance company claimed the car back.
Held: The dealer had not taken all the steps he might have done to check the identity of the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Agency
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.188420
