PLAYLAND DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 64, 15 March 1940, Page 9

PLAYLAND DISPUTE

MANAGER'S AUTHORITY

ACTION FOR RENT SUCCEEDS

RIGHT TO SUE UPHELD

The authority of Henry Seff, general manager and representative in New Zealand of the Double Grip Tubular Steel Devices, Ltd., proprietor of Playland at the Centennial Exhibition, to sue a stallholder for possession of an amusement stall and arrears of rent, is upheld in a reserved judgment delivered in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Smith. The defendant in the action was Edward George. Lay, of Hastings, who was non-suited on his counter-claim for £750 damages for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by Seff. He admitted that the plaintiff company was entitled to recover £225 and was also entitled to an order for possession of the premises held by the defendant under the agreement between them. Mr. A. T. Young appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Evan Parry for the defendant. At the hearing, said his Honour in his judgment, Mr. Parry submitted that no proper warrant to sue had been filed by the plaintiff company in compliance with Rule 15 of the Code. He did not contend that that defect would prevent the Court from hearing the action, but he did contend that the Court should not enter judgment until a proper warrant to sue had been filed. He argued that before judgment was entered the authority on the Court file should be such as to estop the plaintiff company from contending, if judgment went against it on the counter-claim, that the action was brought without its authority. Judgment was reserved on that point, and claim and counterclaim were then heard. "What Mr. Seff has is an agreement made between the plaintiff company and himself for his employment as the general manager of the amusement park which the plaintiff company had agreed to construct and operate in connection with the New Zealand Centennial Exhibition," said his Honour. "This document gives Mr. SefE power to represent the plaintiff company and act as its general manager in connection with the publicity, sub-letting, and operating of the amusement park. As such general manager, he made the agreement between the plaintiff company and the defendant, for the use of space in the park by the defendant, upon which this action is founded. If it appears that the plaintiff company is bound by its agreement with Mr. Seff appointing him the general manager of its business in the amusement park, then it is sufficiently clear, I think, that Mr. Seff can be regarded as the agent of the plaintiff company to sign in this action the varrant to sue required by rule 15. AGENT OF THE COMPANY. In his view, continued his Honour, the plaintiff company was bound by all the acts of Mr. Seff under the agreement appointing him general manager of the amusement park. He thought that was sufficient to constitute him an agent of the company to file a warrant to sue which complied with rule 15 in an action for the enforcement of rights arising from breach of an agreement for the use of space in the amusement park. "If the foregoing conclusion were not correct, the plaintiff company would not be bound by the contracts for the use of space at the amusement park made on its behalf by Mr. Henry Seff. Yet the defendant himself has affirmed that the plaintiff company is so bound by suing for damages for being induced to enter into his contract, whereby he incurred obligations." His Honour concluded by saying that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on its claim, but as the entry of judgment would require the fixing of a time for the delivery of possession he proposed to hear counsel on that question and on costs.