COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 191, 7 May 1908, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL.

A PROPERTY SALE. QUESTION OF CONTRACT. Tho sittings of the Court of Appeal wero resumed yesterday, when tlio case between Arthur J. Joyce, of Utiku (appellant), and George Wood, of JTeilding (respondent)—an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justico Cooper —was hoard. Mr. Skerrett, K.C. (with him Mr. Johnston) appsarod on behalf of tlio appellant, and Mr. Bell, K.C. (with him Mr. Fitiherbert), for respondent. Tlio facts in this caso wero briefly as follow:—Wood set forth in tlio Supremo Court that Joy (jo on June 6, 1907, agreed to purcliaso from him through J. T. Barry, land agent, lot 5, section 149, township of Sandon, for £1600, the terms being: Cash £500, and balanco'about 3£ years at 5b per ccnt. Tho agreement was expressed in tlio following words: "Mr. Barry, Dear Sir.—l havd dccidod to take the property of Mr. Wood, and encloso a ohequo for .£SO as deposit, conditionally that when I pay the balanco as arranged on' August 1, 1907, I obtain possession. Kindly send receipt and oblige Yours, etc., A. J. Joyce." Some correspondence. which had passed between tho parties was submitted to tho Court. It would appear, inter alia, that on Juno 13, Wood inquired whether Joyce was willing to forego the purchase. Mrs. Joyco replied on Juno 25, that they ' would forego for £150. Next day Wood intimated that lie had decided to let tho purchase go on. However, on July 30, 1007, counsel for Joyce notified Wood that he did not sec his way to complete tho purchase. Wood thereforo claimed, (1) that Joyco might be ordered to specifically perform and'carry out his. part of tho agreement, and (2) tho sum of £100 damages, or in the alternative, in tho event of Joyce being unablo to specifically perform his part of tho agreement, £500 damages. On behalf of Joyco it was pleaded that if ho did enter into a contract to purchase, such.contract was not a sufficient contract within section 4: of the Statute of Frauds 29, Charles 11, chap. 3; also that if it wero proved that' there was sufficient writing then there was no concluded : contract. During the argument it was elicited that tho agent fpr tho vendor went to the vendor and signed a writing which contained all the terms of tho purchase, but ho did not communicate to the purchaser: which writing ho had: signed. All tho agent did was to telegraph to tho purchaser that deposit had been received, that tho vendor had accepted and that tho matter of possession had been arranged. Mr. Justice Cooper held that subsequent lotters from tho purchaser referring to. the purchaso wero sufficient to adopt and incorporate all 'tlio terms in . tho memorandum given by tho agent for the vendor to tho vendor. Judgment, was given for Wood with costs on tlio ! highest scalo as on a claim for £1600. This was tho decision appealed from. I : Tho Court reserved its decision. .