Supreme Court Dispute Over Agreement To Buy Kaikoura Bach

Press, Volume C, Issue 29637, 6 October 1961, Page 18

Supreme Court Dispute Over Agreement To Buy Kaikoura Bach

A Christchurch jeweller who had negotiated to buy a bach at Kaikoura under an agreement that he sell, within sii months, a farmlet of 26 acres which he owned at Annat. sought possession of the bach in an action in the Supreme Court yesterday, even though he had not sold his farm. The jeweller. Matthew Edward Daubney (Mr P. H. T. Atoersl. sought an order that the bach owner, Frederick Meikle Kerr, a service station proprietor (Mr E. P. Wills), give h’m possession of the bach. He sought, alternatively, £ 450 damages from Kerr. After hearing legal submissions. Mr Justice Richmond adjourned the case to today. Daubney's statement of claim said an agreement was made with Kerr on January 27. 1960. which nrovided that Daubney buy the bach s”biect to Datibney’s selling his farm at Annat within six months, and subject to possession of the bach being given to Daubnev within ’wo months after the sale of the farm had been notified. Daubnev. in evidence, said he agreed to nurchase Kerr’s bach for £9OO, but that he wished first to disioose of his farm. He later paid Kerr £lOO deposit, and then out his farm on the market. Kerr later said he wanted to call off negotiations for the sale of his bach, the witness said. He told Kerr he wanted the bach, and that he had come to a verbal arrangement with a friend, Pritchard, to buy the farm. His solicitors later sent a letter to Kerr saying that the farm had been sold and he now wished to proceed with the purchase of the bach.

“A document dated July 25 was drawn up with Pritchard, but we did not proceed with the sale and purchase of tihe farm,” Daubney said.

Cross-examined by Mr Wills, Daubney said he did

not appreciate that he had to sell his farm before he could buy the bach. He had put the provision of disposal of his farm in the agreement because he did not want to have two places on his hands. It was not necessary that he sell his farm within six months, only that he pay the money for the purchase of the bach within this period, Daubney said. Defendant's Evidence Kerr said in evidence that when Daubney mentioned purchasing a bach he told Daubney his bach was available for £ 1000. Eventually they decided on £9OO. Daubney went away and came back with an agreement made up. Kerr said the agreement set out the sale of the bach being subject to Daubney’s selling the farm, and possession of the bach did not need to be given until two months after the farm was sold. Later. Daubney called on him and produced some documents and said he had advertised his farm for sale, Kerr said. “I reached out to peruse them, but Daubney snatched them away. I said I did not think the arrangement was very satisfactory, and to call the whole sale off." Kerr said that he received a letter from Daubney saying he had sold the farm and wanted to complete the purchase of the bach, but on investigation Kerr found that Daubney had not sold his farm. To Mr Alpers. Kerr said Daubney gave him the impression that he had included the sale of the farm in the agreement because he needed the money from this sale to buy the bach.

E.E.C. Application. The Danish Government’s application for membership in the Common Market will be discussed in preliminary talks on. October 25.—Brussels, October 5.