BEAUTY CULTURE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 117, 20 May 1933, Page 14

BEAUTY CULTURE.

PURCHASE OF A BUSINESS

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Friday. A discussion concerning various aspects of beauty culture was heard in the Supreme Court when Ruby Mary Alberta Welch, wife of William 1 Kemble Welch, dentist, proceeded against Gertrude Morgan, widow, ladies' hairdresser, for rescission of a contract for the sale of a liairdressing business, together with the return of £318 purchase money paid and certain other moneys as allowance. Mrs. Morgan sold -a liairdressing business in Wellington in August last and agreed to teach Mrs. Welch all branches of the business. t Mrs. Welch alleged that she was not properly taught and that false representations were made to her with the object of inducing her to buy the business. She was therefore seeking to have the agreement rescinded and a return of the moneys paid. Alternatively, she claimed £390 for breach of contract. The defence consisted of a general denial of Mrs. Welch's allegations, and Mrs. Morgan stated, further, that she was at all times ready and willing to teach Mrs. Welch. Mr. Mazengarb, outlining the case for the plaintiff, said that Mrs. Morgan told Mrs. Welch that all she need do was to attend the saloon from four to five o'clock daily ana practice at home on a switch of false liair. It was submitted that the art of liairdressing could not bo learned in that limited time. Experts gave evidence that it would take a year to train a student in all branches, involving daily attendance from 0 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. at a saloon. After hearing the plaintiff, his Honor said it appeared that the action was founded solely on false representation. There was no claim for breach of contract. Mr. Mazengarb, for the plaintiff, asked leave to amend the statement of claim by alleging that by the agreement, 1 Mrs. Morgan undertook to instruct Mri. Welch fully and she failed to do so. | Mr. Cornish, for the defendant, said that when a charge of fraud was brought there should be evidence to support it. Mrs. Morgan, in evidence, said that she did not undertake to turn Mrs. Welch out a first-rate beauty specialist. • She was disappointed that Mrs. Welch did not make more of hor opportunities. Had she worked on enough living models and followed instructions she should 1 have been able to take charge of the saloon. Mr. Justice Ostler, after hearing de-. fendant, said there was no proof of ■ fraudulent misrepresentation. Defend- j ant's belief that Mrs. Welch could learn j the business between August and Janu- j ary was not only lionest, but not un- ! reasonable. Judgment was given for defendant.