Misrepresentation over horse sale alleged

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33814, 10 April 1975, Page 15

Misrepresentation over horse sale alleged

An allegation of misrepresentation about the condition of a colt purchased for $5OOO after it was passed in at the annual New Zealand national ' yearling sale of standardbred yearlings at Canterbury Court on March 11, 1974, was given as one of the reasons why the purchaser refused to complete the contract, when the hearing of a claim for more than $5OOO began in the Supreme Court yesterday. Allan Bede Holmes, a farmer, of Yaldhurst, claims $5OOO, the purchase price of the colt, from Algar Hamilton Burgess, a workman. Mr Holmes also claims from Mr Burgess $991.50 for the cere of the horse which was returned to Mr Holmes and payment on the cheque stopped. Mr Burgess counter-claims for general damages of $5OOO from Mr Holmes, plus special damages. Mr Burgess claims that the horse has a deformity of the left nostril.

! Messrs R. A. and W. G. G. . A. Young appear for Mr [Holmes and Mr C. B. Atkin-: ' son for Mr Burgess. Mr Justice Casey is pre-: siding. The hearing is ex-1 ■ pected to finish today. In his statement of claim! Mr Holmes said that he was the owner of a black colt by Ambro Dell out of Sakeba' which was foaled on September 1, 1972. It was! offered for sale at the stan-j dardbred sales but was! passed in. Mr Burgess offered to pur-; chase the colt for $5000! which Mr Holmes accepted.’

Mr Burgess took delivery of the colt and he paid a| cheque for $5OOO to Wrightson N.M.A., Ltd, as an agent! f Mr Holmes. The cheque' was later stopped.

A letter from Mr Burgess, Ito Mr Holmes posted on; 'April 23, 1974, purported to j I rescind the contract. Mr! j Holmes refused to accept: I that rescission. On May 25. :1974, Mr Burgess had the! icolt delivered to Mr; !Holmes’s farm. Mr Holmes. Irefused to accept the return, ‘of the horse. Mr Burgess’ [would not uplift the colt, so I [Mr Holmes cared for it; pending the outcome of the,: case. ‘SOUND’ In his statement of| defence and counter-claim! Mr Burgess said that Mr| Holmes and his agent, Thomas Henry Gleeson, a trainer, had told him that the colt was “as sound as a bell” and Mr Gleeson said that he would “back his horse and farm on the colt.” As a result of those repreisentations as to the quality of the colt Mr Burgess said I that he agreed to purchase [the horse for $5OOO. j Mr Burgess said that the! 'colt was not sound as repre-! sented but had an obstruct-! ion of the respiratory tract.! It was a condition of the i contract that the colt was I sound and he was entitled to' rescind the contract.

Mr Holmes denied that he [or any of his agents made representations as to the condition of the colt. If the colt was unsound, which he denied, then he had no knowledge of such a condition.