CHRISTCHURCH SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 197, 14 May 1908, Page 8

CHRISTCHURCH SUPREME COURT.

•>— ' QUESTIONS REGARDING AN AGREEMENT. • (BY TEMGIUrH.—FBESS ASSOCIATION.) Christc[)uroh,.May 13.... At a sitting of the Supremo Court ih banco, before Mr. Justice ; Deimistony Mr. George Harper (representing 1 William Minson) and Mr.'Cassidy '(representing'tho 'Exliibition Commissioners) appeared to present argument on certain questions submitted by Mr. V. G. Day, S.M., <vho is.acting as arbitrator between the parties, for a decision'of the Supreme' Court; >; The facts of the case,- as stated hv Mr.'Harper, wore broadly as, follow\V. Minson, while chairman of .'tho Home Industries Committco, entered into an-informal .agreement with the" Commissioners to erect and equip a boardinghouso-ciipablo of accommodating 500 school children, : and to conduct' such .boardinghouse for the .'accommodation of such school children and their parents during, the' period of tho Exhibition! It was agreed that a subsidy of £450 was to be paid by the Commissioners to W. -Minson in re'srie'et to the: undertaking. W. Minson subsequently transferred tho undertaking to F. A. Cook, 'who on three occasions broke tho' agreement by refusing .to accommodate school children." The Commissioners thereupon refused'payment'of the subsidy.' . Tho'• questions submitted by tho arbitrator were as follow:— '(1) At what time was tho subsidy payable? (2) Had William MiDson power to enter irito ail agreement with Frank A, Cook without tho consent of tho Commissioners?' (3) Did tho facts ,'as stated constitute a waiver' of the. condition precedent to the payment of tho subsidy? (4) Did tho refusal of Frank A. Gook'to accommodate school children during 'certain periods amount to a breach of contract entitling tho Commissioners, to damages frii; such breach, or, if it was Tield under tho first question that tho subsidy was.not payable unless ;• tho contract' was fully carried * out, did such refusal constitute a bar. to the said W. Minson claiming tho subsidy ? After hearing argument, His Honour gavo judgment as follows:— . • , •• (1) That the. subsidy .'..was....'duo .at :somo .time during the erection of tho building. (2) That W.'Minson* had power to enter into an arrangement with' P. A.' Cook,', the nature of tho .agrooment with tho Commissioners not- excluding any, such powers. . In regard;to question 3 ho • would., not answer that, as he did not admit any condition precedent'. t ' Tho amount of damages for breach of "contract must be • left'to the arbitrator.