SALE OF SHOP.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 257, 31 October 1933, Page 9

SALE OF SHOP.

BREACH OF COVENANT. BUYER AWARDED £2 DAMAGES. Alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a business and breach of agreement was the ground of legal action heard before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., at the Onehiinga Court yesterday afternoon, when It. Reynolds sued Mrs. E. E. Webb for £75 damages. Mr. Haigh, for plaintiff, said the purchase price of the business, consisting of the sale of milk, cigarettes, etc., sold to Reynolds I*? , Mrs. Webb, and situated in Maniikau Sload, Royal Oak, Onehunga, was £90, including £22 for stock. Mrs. Webb had represented to" plaintiff that the profits of the business amounted to £2 a week after meeting all expenses, including rent, and that her takings for the week before the deal were between £17 and £18. In the first week Reynolds only took £10. When he told Mrs. Webb she said the business was good. In the agreement Mrs. Webb undertook not to start another business of the same kind "within.a mile. She had since done so; v - Reynolds said his profits only amounted to £5 10/ for the first 14 weeks, although his actual sales were ther same as Mrs. Webb's; There was a race meeting the last week she was in the shop. Mrs. Webb admitted to him that her profits had been from bookjnaking. In answer to Mr. Hunt, witness said lehad been asked for a bet in the shop. He had no knowledge of bookmaking before he bought the business. Mrs. Reynolds told of a conversation ehe had with Mr. Webb, who advised her to buy his aerial attached to the shop, as it would be useful if they went in for bookmaking. « Mrs. Webb said in evidence that her new business was a grocery, and only a few side lines were similar to those sold by Reynolds. The purchase price included over £60 worth of stock and fittings. She gave particulars of her takings and profits, and denied the plaintiff's allegation, regarding the purchase of wireless aerials. She admitted some bets had been accepted prior to the sale, but said betting had been abandoned, and denied that it had in any way affected the profits. The magistrate held that there had been no misrepresentation, but defendant had committed a breach of the covenant by starting business within a mile, and on this ground he awarded plaintiff £2 and £2 18/ costs.