CONTRACT IN DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 37, 7 November 1933, Page 6

CONTRACT IN DISPUTE

Supreme Court Hearing “IMPOSSIBILITY” ISSUE An alleged refusal to purchase a property in the city in the face of a contract that had been entered into between buyer and seller was the ground on which damages were claimed in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case, which was heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), will be continued to-day. The claim was for £Bl6/10/- damages, and was made by Stephen Hope Reid, contractor, Wellington, against Robert Richard Holmes, insurance company manager, Wellington. The major portion of the amount claimed was stated to represent the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property. Mr. H. J. V. James appeared for plaintiff and Mr. R. Hardie Boys for defendant It was stated for the plaintiff that on July' 22, 1933, he and the defendant Holmes entered into a contract in writing whereby Holmes agreed to buy the property of 107 Coutts Street, Kil-birnie,-for the sum of £2900. This was subject to the vendor purchasing from Holmes his property at 84 Daniell Street for £BOO and a property at 17 The Esplanade, Petone, for £3OO. Plaintiff now claimed that, while he had been at all times and was now ready and willing specifically to perform all of his obligations under the contract, the defendant had wholly repudiated his obligations under it. Byreason of this, plaintiff had suffered and would suffer damage. He asked, therefore, that the Court would order the defendant specifically to perform the contract or such part of it as could be performed; alternatively, that judgment should be given for £Bl6/10/damages. For the defence the contract was admitted, but it was claimed that it was incapable of being carried into effect. The contract was signed' by the defendant upon the express verbal understanding that it should not bind him unless the consent in writing of Mrs. A. M. Manning, the joint owner of the Esplanade property, had been obtained, it was stated. Mrs. Manning had refused to dp this, and therefore the whole agreement had become discharged by impossibility of performance owing to this fact. Holmes had said that he would buy out Mrs. Manning’s share, said Mr. James. Later he had blamed the land agent concerned for rushing him into the contract and said he was having great difficulty in getting Mrs. Manning to consent to the contract deal. He asked for the whole agreement to be dropped, and went on to decry the value of the properties. A short time later he definitely repudiated the contract and said he would not go on with it on any account. “Both parties to this action are speculators in city properties, not onlyin buying but also in exchanging,” ‘said Mr. James. “I submit that this is a typical case of a person dissatisfied with his bargain attempting to escape from it.”