DEFERRED REWARD

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 42, 18 August 1930, Page 4

DEFERRED REWARD

A CONTRACT POINT

A"FFOIIESTATION FINANCE

A quostion involving tho validity of certain contracts entered into by some afforestation companies was answered by the 'Full Court of Victoria on sth August. Tho Court consisted of Mr. Justice Mann, Mr. Justice M f Arthur, and Mr. Justice Macfarlan. Somo time ago Afforestation Pty., Ltd., of Collins street, Melbourne, brought an action in the County Courl, claiming £17 from Claude Swinton Diston, of Flinders lano, Melbourne. It was claimed that - the money was due by defendant as a monthly instalment under a contract, in writing, dated 86th February. Tho instalments were due in connection with the sale of an interest in certain pine lands in Now Zealand, and "-the produce1 thereon." The action came' before Judgo Williams, who stated a case for the opinion of the Full Court. Tho matter came1 on for argument on sth, August, Mr, Ham, K.Ci, and Mr. Eager (instructed by Mr. Or. W, Viiwoll) appeared for the company, and Mr. .Gunson (instructed by Messrs. Hickford and MacKonzio) appearod for the defonao. Tho Full Court waa asked to say whether the dofenco entered in tho action was good. Mr. Gunson argued that under tho contract any interest in the land was postponed until after the wholo of the individual lot holders of 1000 lots had paid in full for their allotments. That position might in its incidence offend tho rule- against perpetuities. There was further a provision in the contract that each lot holder ■should be entitled to the timber grown on the land until he had received £750, and that thereafter the land should be transferred to trustees for the lot holders and the afforestation company in equal shares. That sum of £75Q might not bo produced within the period, and the trust might exceed the period allowed by the rule against perpetuities. . The Full Court, having heard Mr. Ham in reply, held that tho rule against perpetuities was a, rule of property law, and had no application to contracts. The Court answered the quostion accordingly, and directed that the dofondant pay the costs.^