HOUSE TRANSACTION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 130, 28 November 1924, Page 8

HOUSE TRANSACTION

DISPUTED IN COURT.

A dispute concerning the alleged Bale of two houses in Wright street came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) this morning in the Supreme Court. Ths parties were Herman Otto Manz, farmer, represented by Mr.' M. Luckie, and Samuel Charles" Mayall, council employee, represented by Mr. S. A. Wiren.

. The application of the plaintiff was for an-order for specific performance of a contract for sale and purchase concerning the two houses, the price of the property being mentioned at £1450. Plaintiff alleged that defendant agreed to purchase the properties, and the offer was accepted in November, 1923. In February following, defendant declined to continue with the purchase, and applied for a refund of the £50 placed, on deposit. Damages amounting to £100 were asked for in addition to the order for performance. Defendant's case was that J. D. M. M'lntyre, agent for plaintiff, simultaneously with the making.of the offer of purchase, gave a better undertaking to raise £1000 on the security' of the property. This offer \vas made to .induce defendant to' buy the properties. He alleged that the raising-of the mortgage of £1000 was a condition precedent to any liability on his (defendant's) part. He requested that this condition be performed, but it had not been. He therefore declined to proceed with the purchase. Defendant also defended on the ground that there was no course of action, owing to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds not having been complied with, in that the offer did not disclose the owner. On behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Luckie said the offer to raise a mortgage '\r>s considered, by plaintiff to be a matter between the agent and defendant. The agent acted on his own behalf, and not as agent for plaintiff. (Proceeding/) '.'.■•