DISPUTED CONTRACT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 162, 10 July 1924, Page 7

DISPUTED CONTRACT.

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FAILS. AGREEMENT NOT CONCLUDED. Judgment was given by Mr. Justice i ] Stringer this morning in an action at the j Supreme Court regarding a contract for the purchase of land at Waimarie, near | Hobsonville. Mary Elizabeth Fletcher j (Mr. Anderson) proceeded against Fannie ! Bernstein (Mr. Hall Skelton), for the,' specific performance of a contract which j was entered into in December, 1923. , In opening for plaintiff, Mr. Anderson stated that plaintiff's husband and defendant had talked over the purchase of the property, and plaintiff later decided to sell, a written contract with defendant being entered into. After a deposit had been paid, defendant wrote stating that she would pay the whole of the balance in cash. Later, the contract was repudiated by defendant. Joseph Edwin Fletcher, who conducted his wife's business, stated in evidence that the transaction was not conditional on the sale of a property in the South. A nonsuit was moved for by Mr. Hall Skelton, on opening for the defence. He submitted that plaintiff's title wag defective, and she had not disclosed this at the time of the alleged sale. He also submitted that the contract had not been concluded. He also alleged that there were certain misrepresentations, and the price was exorbitant. It was stated in evidence by defendant that plaintiff's husband informed her that he paid £1150 for the property. Plaintiff's husband assured witness that she would have no difficulty in disposing of a property owned' by her, and he said he would let her have his place for £1250. Later, witness wrote and told Mr. Fletcher that she would be unable to proceed with the purchase. When witness inspected the property she found that the dwelling represented as "a bonny home" and "semi-bungalow" was only a two-room shack, with a lean-to structure. An orchard, which she had been led to believe was in a flourishing condition, was not up to expectations. The property was priced at £750 and £72(5 respectively by two valuers called by defendants. Two witnesses for plaintiff valued it at £1200. Another witness made a valuation estimate of £1350. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Stringer plaintiff had failed to establish a contract. As the contract stood it was not a concluded agreement, material matters having been left for further negotiation. The fact that there was no definite contract was enough to dispose of the matter. In the next place, there was a defect as to title. The defect in the title should have been disclosed to defendant at the inception of the con- i tract. His Honor was glad that he had been relieved from the unpleasant duty of deciding whether there had been misrepresentation. It seemed that the language used in describing the property was far too glowing; the fects did not justify what was said. j Judgment was given for defendant i with costs. j