CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 151, 29 June 1927, Page 8

CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM.

REMUERA PICTURE HOUSE.

ALLEGED BREACH OF

CONTRACT.

BUILDER'S PURCHASE 01

SHARES

A contract for the erection of a picture house at l'vuiuera was the subject of litigation in the Supreme Court to-dav. Mr Justice Kced heard a claim by George Henry Edwards (Mr. Fotheringham) for the sum of £3250, as loss of profit on a contract alleged to have been entered into for the erection of the building. Defendants were the Remuera Theatre Company, for whom Mr. E. H. Northcroft appeared.

Mr. Fotheringham said, in November, 1020, plaintiff took 2000 shares in the company, paying £400 as a first instalment, on the condition that lie should build the theatre, at a contract price of not less than £14.800. Plaintiff was approached by the brokers, and informed that, in consideration of him taking the shares, they would undertake to secure for him the building contract. In the specifications it was stated that the company would become bound to the contract on the day when it was prepared to start business. Xo contract was signed, although a draft contract was drawn up. Finally the company decided not to. proceed with the deal with Edwards, and another contractor was engaged.

Tho claim of £3250 was made up as follows:—Price of shares allotted to plaintiff, £2000; and the remaining £1280 being 10 per cent, on the contract price reduced by £2000.

Mr. Xorthcroft said the defence would l)o a contention that no definite contract existed. No exact price had ever been mentioned, the phrase "not lees than" having been used in connection with the figure of £14,50 D.

Plaintiff, giving evidence, said he had done nothing to justify the agreement Ik> ing broken off, nor had he committed anv breach of the aerreed contract.

Mr. Edwards added that an application (produced) was signed by him. He knew the contents, the gist being that 20(10 shares were allotted to him. He had never agreed to the contract not being given to him. He reckoned to make 10 per cent on the contract (£3208). He thought the shares might be valueless, but the £.1208 was subject to that possibility.

Cross-examined by Mr. Northcroft. witness said he first came in contact with the matter through Mr. James, the architect. Mr. James asked him to give a tender for .i picture theatre at Remuera. and witness gave him a verbal tender of £12.800. Mr. James then said that ho (witness) would be asked to take \ip 2000 shares. Witness told Mr. James that he would withdraw his tender, but the other said there would not be any difficulty about the matter, and thnt he need not take the contract unless the shares were added on to his price. The £2000 wa« agreed upon between them.

theatre and they vere prepared to do tho work for £13,500, but refused the offer on account of a stipulation requiring them to take up 2000 shares in the picture house.

Mr. Northcroft said there was no definite clause under which plaintiff could claim liability on the part of the defendants. It was a speculative transaction on the part of plaintiff. The ca#c is proceeding.

"A Speculative Transaction.'

Arthur James Good, a director of an I Auckland firm of contractors, said his I firm had been approached to erect the |