JUDGMENT

Wee Chong Jin CJ (delivering Judgment of the Court):

The appellants are dealers in secondhand cars. The respondent, Mr. Kerr is an RAF officer stationed in Singapore. He does not drive but his wife does, having possessed a driving, licence for about ten years. In February 1970 they were minded to buy a secondhand car. Mrs. Kerr with a friend saw and liked an eight year old BMW Coupe 1962 model car at the appellants' premises. She visited the appellants' premises again on 12th February 1970 accompanied by her husband. On this occasion she took the car for a test drive accompanied by a Mr. Lee, the chief mechanic of the appellants. She drove the car for three miles or so.

After the test drive a bargain was struck. The respondent agreed to buy the car for $1,400 and gave the appellants a cash cheque post-dated to 1st March 1970 in full payment. He took delivery of the car two days later on Saturday 14th February 1970 through his wife who had the day before taken out a policy of insurance on the car, paid the road tax and obtained a Singapore driving licence. On the day she took delivery of the car she signed on behalf of the respondent a document which stated, inter alia "I and my wife tested the said car and found to my satisfaction and take delivery on 14-2-70 time 2.30 p.m." This document also acknowledged receipt of the Registration book and a transfer form duly signed by the previous registered owner of the car.

The next day, a Sunday, Mrs. Kerr said she had difficulty with the first and reverse gears. On Monday she said she could not get the car started and telephoned the appellants who sent a mechanic, apparently Mr. Lee, to her house who showed her how to start the car by the use of the choke. On Tuesday she again could not get the car started and the mechanic came to her house and used a spare battery to start the car. On Wednesday she had the same trouble and the car was taken to the appellants' premises and collected by her at 5 p.m. after the battery was recharged. Thereafter from Friday till the following Monday the car was all right but on that day and the next day when she was in the city she said she had great difficulty with the first and reverse gears. So on Wednesday the car was again driven to the appellants' premises and collected by her later in the afternoon. Two days later, because her daughter had asked her why she had bought a car with no tread on she took the car to the appellants' premises and asked the manager to put retreaded tyres on the front wheels. She collected the car at 6 p.m. that day and she said that on the way back to her home the tyres "were screaming" and she had to drive on 2nd gear to drive quietly.

The next morning, Saturday 28th February, she had a visitor, a Mr. Frearson, and after telling him what she had experienced the day previous asked him to have a look at it, Mr. Frearson was also an RAF officer. He had been driving cars for 30 years and for the last 7 years had done maintenance work on his own car although not a qualified motor engineer. He jacked up the car and found the front offside wheel leaning inwards at the top by about 10' from the vertical and a 3" play on the wheel. He saw a bright mark on the shock absorber where the tyre had been rubbing and thought that this could have accounted for the squeaking. He acknowledge he could not tell why there was a 3" play on the wheel and that he did not examine the front nearside wheel because he said the fault was obviously on the front offside wheel. He did agree that a 3" play could occur overnight if a kingpin broke or a component of that kind broke or the wheel had been improperly fixed after a tyre had been replaced. On his examination he advised Mrs. Kerr that the car was "unroadworthy" but if she was to drive it she should not exceed 15 to 20 mph and it would be unsafe to carry any passengers in it.

On that advice Mrs. Kerr then drove the car to the appellants' premises and told the manager of the appellants