The Washington times., 1920-07-03
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
The Gist of the Current De-
oisions Interpreted for
Lay Readers.
By Our Legal Correspondent

In a recent Washington case IL sp-
peared that an automobile was sold
and delivered upon the payment OF
part OF the purchase price, the bal
ance being left on open account. Sub
sequsntly, the. purchaser executed a
conditional contract OF sale in favor
OF the vendor, under the terms OF
which the latter reserved the right 10
| reclaim the car In the event that pay
ments were not made as stipulated In
the contract. The purchaser failed to
meet the payments as they matured,
and the vendor instituted suit for the
reclamation OF the car. under the
terms OF his contract
Ordinarily. such action on the part
OF a vendor under a conditional con-
tract OF sale Is unimpeachable, but
| there 10 a legal rule TO the effect that
once a transaction has been closed
stipulations subsequently imposed
upon one OF the parties in favor of
the other are not legally enforceable.
although mutually/akreed TO. IL was
upon this rule that the purchaser re-
sisted the action OF the vendor In the
case in question.
The court decided that the rule in
question should not be applied TO the
| case OF a conditional sale contract un-
der the circumstances stated. This
| exception to the general rule seems
| TO have been based upon the general
principle that where a party volun-
tarily gives security for a debt which
he actually owes. he should not be
permitted TO prevent it's enfoTcemnt
on purely technical grounds while the
debt remains unpaid.
| This IL an important ruling for the
automobile trade. Its practical effect
| IL 10 10 w
have sold their cars on open account,
| and afterward feel that they should
have some security. there will be no
| legal impediment to the enforceme mt
| OF. such security, although no pro-
vision was made for 1t in the origi-
! nal sale
A recent decision In Pennsylvania
| is instructive on the question OF the
| effect OF giving promissory notes for
the unpaid balance due on a car, as
affecting the buyers rights II trouble
develops through defects or other
causes OF complaint in connection
| with the use OF the car. In this case,
| after the purchaser had given notes
| to the dealer, it developed that the
car did not meet the written guar
| antee which the buyer had exacted.
| and that camouhaged secondhand
! tires had been delivered as new tires
as part of the cars equipment. When
the first note came due the buyer re-
| fused to pay ii. making counter
| claim for his loss. But the dealer
| had negotiated the notes to his bank.
The bank sued the purchaser, and in
| accordance with the well-known rule
| of law governing negotiable instru-
ments, the court decided that the
! claims of the purchaser could not be
| relied upon as against the bank s
| right to payment of the note.
The rule of law that a person In
jured in an automobile accident is not
| entitled to damages unless he can
prove some specific act of negligence
| on the part of the motorist. as pointed
| out in previous articles in this series.
| is illustrated in another decision just
| handed down in Pennsylvania. In
| this case the proof showed that the
| injured person was found rolling in
the street in the path of an automo-
| bile truck that had just passed. The
inferences from the character Of the
| injuries and all the circumstances
| tendd to show that the plaintiff had
| been struck by the truck, but the
! plaintiff was unable to say positively
what struck him. and there was no