MISREPRESENTATION.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 246, 17 October 1929, Page 11

MISREPRESENTATION.

EPSOM BAKERY LEASE.

JUDGMENT TOR PLAINTIFF,.

INFORMATION WAS SUPPRESSED,

Holding that all the elements of what the law termed fraudulent misrepresentation -were present, Mr. Justice Smith gave judgment for plaintiff, in the Supreme Court to-day, in the case in which Peter Elder Ramsay, baker (Mr. Quartley), claimed from Thomae Alfred Leonard Mitchell, commercial traveller (Mr. Goldstine), £156 damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the lease of a. bakers shop and premises in Manukau Road, Epsom, which he asked to have cancelled. Defendant denied any misrepresentation, and counter-claimed for £578 damages for loss of rent and £32 for arrears of rent. His Honor, in hie judgment, commented on the letter in which defendant stated that the shop and premises were one of the best propositions in the whole district. "In my opinion." said his Honor, "this is to be regarded as an introductory puff. It is extravagant, and obviously extravagant, but I do not think any action for fraudulent misrepresentation could succeed on this ground." His Honor said that no dishonest intention could be imputed to defendant with regard to the locality of the shop and to what defendant said as to how well others in the neighbourhood were doing. He found on the evidence, however, that the defendant did not tell plaintiff about the former tenant Bear. This was one of the fraudulent mis« representations. Another wae that defendant suppressed all reference to the fact that Taylor had had hie rent reduced, and to the further fact that one of the substantial reasons that Taylor did not make a success of the bakery was that he paid too much, to Bear for the premises. Defendant intended that plaintiff should act on the untrue statements made to him, and plaintiff did on them. What was stated became materially untrue.

Plaintiff was entitled to have the lease cancelled, his Honor eaid, but the sum of £6 3/, representing the cost of having the lease prepared, was the only damage he could get. Judgment was given for plaintiff both in respect of the claim and counter-claim, with costs on both.