SALE OF A FARM.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 218, 15 September 1925, Page 12

SALE OF A FARM.

BUYER GOES SACK ON PURtltAfefe. (CLaim of Damages. (By Telegrapn.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A claim for £200 damages for alleged breach of agreement was brought in the Hamilton Supreme Court yesterday, in Which Eric NelSbh Colliiis, farmer,' of Rotokau'ri, was plaintiff, and Janet Larney, spinster, of.Waihou, was defendant. Mr. Lance Tompkins represented plaintiff and Mr. J. F. Strang, defendant. The case related to an alleged agreement, by defendant to purchase plaintiff's, farm of 35 acres arid stock at Rotokauri

Plaintiff, in ' evidence;. Said that in April 7 last he placed his farm and stock in the hands of several agents for sale •as a going Concern. On April 24, Mr. Young (salesman for the Farmer's Auctioneering Company) took out defendantto serine pla'cS. She Ms satisfied with it, said she liked it and agreed to ; buy it. Mr. Young drew up a hurried agreement, which was there and then signed by both parties. A few days lateif MiSS L'atn'ey Wrote $8 the agent enclosing £25 as a deposit. When a few weeks later a formal contract was Sent to Miss Larney for her signature, she refused to sign it, and, through her solicitors, intimated that she would proceed nb further with the trancaction. Plaintiff later sold the property for f 1400, and instituted these proceedings to recover his loss on .the re-sale. and the expenses he had incurred. If was mentioned, in evidence}' that the second purchaser had also failed .to complete; r

Evidence for plaintiff was giveri by B. R. Young, the agent who sold the: property, whd said plaintiff was per-f fectly with the place And wasjj ArixibuS to huy. It was agreed thejl defendant should take possession in ; abduj; Six weeks' time, when the balance of £500 deposit was to be paid, and it wasvefbally Agreed that a second mortgage was to be given plaintiff for the balance; No mention was, however, made of this in the written agreement. Later, a legal agreement was drawn up, when A clause Wag added giving plaintiff a bill of sale dyer the stock. ~ Mr.- Strang Mid he did not propose to call any evidence, and moved for a nbhsuit on the grounds that the agreement did not contain all the essential 1 terms of the fcoritract, as required by the Statute of Frauds. His Honor expressed the opinion that the agreement was lacking in an essential detail by failihg to state definitely when the balance of the deposit was to be paid and by omitting mention of the second mortgage; The legal agreement had Also been varied by the additibn bf a security over the stock Mr. Tompkins contended that while the preliminary agreement, which was actually drawn by Collins, did riot contain the terms of the purchase money, his-argument would be directed to showing thAt the whole of the correspondence may be taken together, and, therefore, constituted a riiemofandUm sufficient to Satisfy the Statute of Frauds. (Proceeding.