BUYING A HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 35, 10 August 1933, Page 17

BUYING A HOUSE

QUESTION OF CONTRACT

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT

Tho hearing was continued in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon of an action brought by Philip' Joseph May, of Takapau, against Hazel May Bowycr, Wellington, for specific performance of an agreement to purchase a house in Cooper Street, Karori, the price being £1225; or, alternatively, in case it was held that plaintiff was not entitled to a decree, ho claimed £200 damages for breach of contract, and costs. For tho defence, it was contended that the contract to buy the house was not to take effect until tho defendant and her husband had made a further inspection of the dwelling-house. That condition was never fulfilled. Mr. Justice MacGregor occupied the Bench. . Mr. E. P. Hay .appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A.F. Hogg, with him Mr. J. D. Willis, for the defendant. Hazel May Bowyer, defendant, and Bernard Stockley A. Bowyer gave evidence for the defence. Both witnesses denied understanding that the agreement they signed was an agreement binding them to buy the house. They said that they understood that it was merely an offer to buy the house if they, approved of it after further inspection next day. Herbert Haines, builder, saicl that in company with Mrs. Bowyer, he inspected the house on the day after the defendant signed the agreement to buy. In his opinion tho property was not worth £.900. His Honour said that as at present advised, it appeared to him that the defendant had made out a very strong case in her defence. He would like to hear -what counsel for the plaintiff had to say in regard to the paragraph in the statement, of defence as to the' condition that there was to be further inspection"of the property. Mr. Hay submitted that tho docu-

ment signed as an agreement must bo given its full weight. The onus rested on tho defendant to prove that tho condition precedent did not exist. In delivering judgment, his Honour said that the action was defended on two grounds. The first was that too long a time had elapsed to commence an action on the ground of a claim for specific performance. He did not proposo to deal with that ground, as ho had found it unnecessary to do so. The second ground was that the defendant and her husband were to make a further inspection of the house before the contract became effective. That condition had not been fulfilled, nor had the internal condition of the house been approved. The question ho had to determine, said his Honour, was: Had the defence been proved? It was perfectly true that when a man or woman signed a contract, the rule was that they wero bound by it. Thore were, however, many rulings that if a contract was signed subject to certain conditions and that the contract would not bo effective until those conditions wore complied with, such contract was not complete until tho conditions had been fulfilled. In this case, two young married people signed a document which they understood would only be effective after they-had further inspected the property. On further inspection they decided that the house was not in such a condition as they could buy it. It seemed to his Honour that the defence had been proved, and that there was no legal binding contract in existence. Therefore, the case for the plaintiff could: not succeed. . - ; . Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs as on a claim for £500.