RESCISSION CLAIMS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 35, 10 August 1933, Page 13

RESCISSION CLAIMS

PURCHASE OF SECTIONS

FAIRFIELD ESTATE LAND

Evidence about the appearance and estimated value of" the house which, it is alleged, lias been-built in breach of a building restriction as to cost, and has spoilt the locality, ' causing the value of sections to depreciate, occupied the greater part of the Hinie at the continued hearing in the Supreme Court today of the two actions asking for rescission of agreements to purchase sections of land in the Fairfield Estate, Lower Hutt, or, alternatively, damages. The plaintiffs are William Ferrier Hadwin, a builder, and Mrs. Eleanor Gertude Stoupe, both of Lower Hutt, and the defendant in each case is Charles Gilbert White, solicitor, of Wellington. The two actions are being heard by Mr. Justice Eeed. On his claim for rescission, Hadwin asks for the return of £274 12s, and interest. Alternatively, he ' claims £.400 damages. The amount Mrs. Stoupe seeks to have returned to her is £81 4s lid, with interest, and, alternatively she is claiming £100 damages. The house to which objection is taken is owned by Mr. A. M. Haldane. Counsel for the plaintiffs are Mr. E. P. Bunny and Mr. G. K. Powles,'and Mr. G. G. G. Watson and Mr. H. J. V. James are for the defendant. His Honour said he desired to obtain some idea of the nature of the locality, and it was arranged among counsel that photographs should be taken ancl supplied to the Court. ' ' PRE-SLUMP AND PRESENT COSTS. •' Mr. Stoupe,, a company director, husband of Eleanor Gertrude Stoupe, said, in reply to Mr. Powles, that there would be no foundation for a suggestion that Mrs. Stoupe was making Haldane's house an excuse for • getting out of the contract. He was perfectly willing that the contract should be completed if the vendor fulfilled his obligations. Replying to his Honour, Mr. Powles said that if the vendor took steps to make Haldane spend £900 on his property that would be the end of the matter. ■ . Mr. Watson (to Mr.. Stoupe): If a house .equivalent in value to the preslump price of £900 can be built today for £500 you wouldn't be satisfied because it didn't cost £900?— I wouldn't say that. Do you insist that on your particular section you must spend at least £900 today irrespective of how big" a house that produces'? —I am compelled by my agreement to do so. After further questions, his Honour said he thought Mr. Stoupe recognised it would be to the advantage . the estate if the covenants were recast. His Honour suggested that it would be stupid to insist on the letter of the bond if a house equivalent to ( the prcslump house costing £900 could be built nowadays for £700. i NONSUITS CLAIMED. ■Mr. Watson submitted that in each case the plaintiff! should be nonsuited. The only expressed covenant dealing with the question of building was contained in clause 13 of the agreement for sale and purchase. That covenant only restricted purchasers to building a certain type of house. There was no extension of the covenant to provide that the vendor would prevent other section-holders from building a different type of housed It was purely a covenant binding'tho purchaser of a particular' section .to build a particular typo of house. It was common ground —indeed, it was pleaded and admitted —that the several agreements between the vendor and tho several purchasers contained that covenant. It was also established that in the formal contract between the parties there was 310 written obligation on the vendor to do anything. Further legal, argument was . being heard at the siine ongoing to press,