DEAL IN SECTIONS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 14, 16 July 1929, Page 11

DEAL IN SECTIONS

A MISTAKE SOMEWHERE

■A mistake between the purchaser and the seller as to what section was actually bought was the subject of a reserved decision given by Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day. The case was the one in which Arthur W. Hillson claimed £67 5s 8d from James Stellin, a land and estate agent, of Wellington, the plaintiff alleging that the section he inspected in a sub-division estate in Sutherland was not the one he signed an agreement to purchase.

After reviewing the evidenc, Mr. Page continued:

"In a case of this sort it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that he made a mistake as to the piece" of land that he was buying. If a man does not take sufhcient care to ascertain what he 13 contracting about, he must take the consequenceß. In order to succeed in his action, lie must prove that his mistake was caused by misrepresentation on the part ot the defendant or his agent."" There is a sharp conflict in the evidence, and the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff. The case has given me some difficulty, and I have tivice viewed the land in question, but I have come to the conclusion that the evidence falls short of establishing the plaintiff's claim. Judgment must accordingly be entered for the defendant." Mr. E. Parry, who appeared for the defendant, said that the defendant did not intend to hold the plaintiff to the bond in which he had agreed to buy one of the sections. The defendant, said Mr. Parry, would have been quite willing to consider the matter if the pjaintiff had come to him in the first place, but instead of that the plaintiff had had solicitors' letters written Mr. Page said that he was glad that the defendant was taking this course of action, as it was quite evident that a mistake had been made.

At the hearing Mr. W. D. Goodwin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Evan Parry for the defendant.