CONTEACT RESCINDED?

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 122, 19 November 1929, Page 11

CONTEACT RESCINDED?

A DECLARATION CLAIMED

A claim for a declaration that a contract entered into by him' and William Stewart, of Lower Hutt, for the purchase of property in Eandwiclt road, Lower Hutt, had bcen'validly rescinded on the ground of misrepresentation, was made in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon by George Hamilton Scott, merchant, of Wellington. Tho Chief Justice (the Hon. M. Myers) was on the Bench. Mr. W. H. Cunningham appeared for the plaintiff, who also claimed the return of his deposit, stamp duties, and legal costs, totalling £123 12s; and Mr. M. F. Luckie acted for the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that it had been represented him by J. E. M'Laren, a salesman, that the property was in the Lower Hutt industrial area. It was alleged that the property was actually outside the area, aud the plaintiff had accordingly, through his solicitor (Mr. Barnett) rescinded the contract. For the dofeuce it was urged that the rescission of tho contract had not been accepted, and that the representations, if made, were not made by M'Laren as agent for the defendant. B. S. Knox, Town Clerk of Lower Hutt, gave evidence to the effect that neither of tho industrial areas denned in the 1926 and 1928 bylaws included the defendant's property. The council had granted a subdivision of tho land, but had pointed out that it could not be used for timber yards or tho installation of machinery. The plaintiff's evidence was along the lines of his statement of claim. He said he had made no application to the council for permission to use tho property for his timber business. , In reply to Mr. Luckie, the witness said.he had not mentioned the matter of an industrial area to his solicitor. Ho supposed that M'Laren knew where the area was. The Court adjourned until to-day. Mr. Barnett gavo evidence bearing out the statement of claim. Cross-ex-amined by Mr. Luckie, ho stated that in an interview with him on sth June, Mr. Luckie had disputed Barnett's statement in a letter to him. that M'Laren was Stewart's agent in the matter, had denied responsibility for M'Laren's statement, .because it was made before an authority for sale was given; and consequently. had refused to accept cancellation of tho contract. William Stewart stated that in January of last year, M'Laren came to him and said he had an inquiry from a man who wanted an acre oi' land near the ramp at Bandwick road, for stacking timber on. He told M'Laren that he did not want a factory built on the land, and M'Laren said that all the land was wanted for was to stack timber on. On that representation being signed an authority for M'Laren to sell at the rate of £.1000 an acre, and signed an authority for M'Larn to soil it; and ultimately a sale was agreed to. The quostion of the land being in the industrial area was not raised and was never in his mind. Ho never heard about it until after the trouble had arisen. By Mr. Cunningham: "Ho did not put anything in the authority restricting the purposes for which the land was to be used." (Proceeding.)