SUPREME COURT ACTION

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25308, 7 October 1947, Page 3

SUPREME COURT ACTION

CONTRACT PRICE FOR HOUSE APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE’S DECISION An appeal by Phillip Dunstan Ramsay, a motor-body builder, of Christchurch, against the decision of Mr Raymond’ Ferner, S.M., in giving judgment for John Sidney Jackson, builder and contractor, of Christchurch, for £lOO, was heard by Mr Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr K. J. McMenamin appeared for the appellant and Mr C. S. Thomas for the respondent. The facts were undisputed, said Mr McMenamin. On November 19, 1945, Jackson agreed to build a house in Opawa road for Ramsay for £1597, and Ramsay accepted this price, subject to his being granted a rehabilitation loan. In January, 1946, Jackson found he had made a mistake in addition and the price for the house should have been £1697. Jackson said he would not complete the work unless he was paid the further £lOO, and Ramsay agreed to pay this amount to rectify the mistake in addition. Work was started on the house on March 6, 1946, but on March 22 the validity of the promise given by Ramsay was questioned. It was finally agreed that Ramsay should pay the £lOO to Jackson’s- solicitors, to be held by them in their trust fund until the dispute was settled. The matter was taken to the Magistrate’s Court and the Magistrate gave judgment for Jackson for the amount claimed. *

Ramsay was now appealing from this judgment. The question for the Gqurt was whether Ramsay’s promise was binding and enforceable at law. Counsel submitted that the promise was not binding, on the grounds that the contract was not invalidated by Jackson’s mistake and that the contract of November 19, 1945, was binding on Jackson. Respondent’s Contentions Jackson contended he was entitled to the £lOO, said Mr Thomas. He accepted the Magistrate’s judgment as correct, but he was unable to accept the Magistrate’s view that there was no proof of valuable consideration for the amendment to the contract. The original contract provided for costing based on the ruling rates for material and labour as at November 19, 1945. The costing was worked out on that basis and the individual items were correctly stated, but the addition was wrong, being £lOO short. Immediately the mistake was discovered, Ramsay was informed, the figures were gone into and it was agreed • that the total was wrong. An agreement for rectification was entered into on January 15, 1946. Work on the house was begun on March 6, 1946, and it was not until the foundations were laid and the joists in place that Ramsay raised any question of his liability to pay the £lOO.

Counsel submitted that the mistake was a mutual one, for either party was entitled to look at the items and go into them. If the individual items were correct and the total was wrong, either party would be entitled to rectification of the contract on the grounds of mutual mistake. The mistake was rectified by agreement. How could Ramsay now say that the original contract, which he admitted did not show the true agreement between the parties, was the contract? His Honour reserved his decision.