Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Thursday, 28 Jul 1994

SECTION 59.

Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 172:

In page 36, subsection (1), lines 28 and 29, to delete "the total cost of credit payable under the agreement" and substitute "hire-purchase price".

These amendments are similar to amendment No. 125 to section 42. We have defined "hire purchase" in amendment No. 13 and it is the term used in relation to hire purchase agreements. Any deposit paid by the consumer under the hire purchase agreement is a constituent part of the hire purchase price. The term "total cost of credit" should not have been included here, it should have been "hire purchase price" because total cost of credit is not suitable to this section.

That clears up the term "total cost of credit" because it is obscure if one is talking about a cash price. The hire purchase price is probably better.

There is an error in amendment No. 172. The word "the" where it first appears is not intended for deletion as it also applies to the amendment.

Is the amendment to amendment No. 172 agreed to? Agreed.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 173:

In page 37, subsection (5), line 7, to delete "total cost of credit" and substitute "hire-purchase price".

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 59, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

As regards subsection (2) (a), which states: "the hirer shall be released from all liability under the agreement, and shall be entitled to recover from the owner all sums paid by the hirer under the agreement", is it not normal to build in a provision to recover interest on money paid? Is it not normal practice in courts that if one is refunded money, it would include interest on the money for the period during which one made payments. What is common practice there?

Is Deputy Bruton referring to subsection (2) (a) which states: "the hirer should be released from all liability under the agreement and should be entitled to recover from the owner all sums paid by the hirer under the agreement"?

Yes, if the owner recovers a suite of furniture in contravention of subsection (1), in other words, he should have taken legal proceedings, and if he keeps the suite of furniture and one gets one's money back, is it not normal to get it back plus accrued interest for the period the owner had the money?

Is that because the goods have been returned? We have not included that here. Subsection (2) (a) states: "and shall be entitled to recover from the owner all sums paid by the hirer under the agreement or under any security given by him in respect thereof".

One presumes the interest——

The interest was part of that.

That fact the person had use of the suite of furniture meant they were not entitled to interest.

One would need some quid pro quo for having the use of the goods.

As regards section 59 (1) and (2), does subsection (2) allow the owner to repossess on the terms that the person is released from all liability and securities? Is the right of the hirer——

To take back his goods.

——or the consumer to hold on to the goods still preserved in subsection (2)? In other words, can you go to court to get an injunction saying that you want to keep a washing machine or can the owner say he wants to stop it on those terms without any damage claim?

I am told you can get an injunction to stop removing the goods. That would not preclude them from doing that.

So subsection (2) is not exhaustive. It might be better to include something stating that it is without any prejudice to any rights under the contract of the hirer. It seems this might be interpreted as giving someone a licence to terminate on those terms.

Perhaps we could look at subsection (2), which states: "If an owner recovers possession of goods in contravention of subsection (1), the hire purchase agreement, if not previously determined, shall determine,". Deputy McDowell is asking if it makes it unlawful for a hirer to go to court.

If one wants to keep it unlawful to break the agreement, it needs to be highlighted, otherwise it is open to the interpretation that this is a way an owner can tear up an agreement and walk away with the goods.

We will look at that to see if we need stiffer wording.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share