CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 51, 28 August 1920, Page 5

CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

T JH(3sra, f? lltl was delivered by the Chief Justic (Sir Robert Stout) this week in the case of Edward Band and Sidney b. U. Uornor v. George Dome, a, claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell land in the Wainui eurver district. At the hearing the question waa raised: "Are tho plaintiffs entitled to specific performance of the said agreement for sale dated the'2nd day ot December, 1919, without adding the sum of £160 to the sum of £1353 15 a IB?n^. onl r dL "\ V lB said agreement for sale/ The defendant contended that his understanding of the agreement was thati £160 paid was the price ot the option, and that it was not to be considered as part of the purchase monoy, and that the agreement of December was erroneous .in stating that all that had to be paid was £340, and the giving of a mortgage for the balance namely £1353 15s. He said that he had made a mistake, but in his Honour's opinion there was no evidence that it was a mutual mistake. The defendant claimed that even if it were a uni-lateral mistake it was one of that, class that is a defence to a claim for specific performance, and that all the plaintiff could claim would^ be damages His Honour then referred to cases that lay down tho principle that has to bo followed in, deciding whether » uni-lateral mistake is deemed sufficient defence to an action for specific performance "I am of opinion," he said, "that were specific performance refused in. this action, the later, cases I have quoted would be treated as oveixruled,. and a new, rule would be laid down tliat would in my ■opinion, result in great hardship' I am therefore of opinion that the question put to tha Court mast be aflpwred W » ,tu4gfflMit .«« give,, ««S tnjriy. in favour oi pJMntiftj ■