ST. KILDA HOUSE SALE

Evening Star, Issue 19032, 29 August 1925, Page 9

ST. KILDA HOUSE SALE

* , VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT • NO BINDING CONTRACT. Judgment in the case of Robert M'Kenzie (plaintiff) v. Robert Ghatten Allen (defendant), a claim for , specific performance of an agreement respecting the sale of a house in Grove street, St. Hilda, was given this morning by His Honor Mr Justice Sim. At the hearing Mr J. B. Callan appeared for plaintiff and Mr tl. E. Darrowclough for defendant.

Hia Honor stated; that the allegation of plaintiff was that Allen offered to purchase for £1,240 the plaintiff’s property at 7 Grove street, and that such offer was duly accepted. The offer was contained in the following letter written -by the defendant to Messrs Park, Reynolds, Ltd., tho authorised agents of the plaintiff;—“ Messrs Park, Reynolds, Ltd., —I hereby offer the sum of £1,240 for Mr M'Kenzie’s property, 7 Grove street, the eum of £3OO deposit, the balance to be repaid by tho sum of £2 weekly, paying interest on first and second mortgages and reducing the principal of the second mortgage, curtains and fittings included .—(Signed) Robert C. Allen.” Tne plaintiffs property, continued His Honor, was subject to a, mortgage to the Loyal Albion Lodge payable by instalments, but this was not one of the mortgages referred to in the letter. Mr Nicholson, tho salesman who arranged the sale, said tho arrangement was that the plaintiff was to; bo paid the full price in cash, ind that, to enable this to bo done. Park, Reynolds were to raise the money for the defendant on two mortgages of iho property According to this version of tho matter, tho first sentence of the letter contained an offer to Perk, Reynolds, as agents for the plaintiff', to purchase the property for £1,240, to be paid in cash, and the next sentence contained a request to Park, Reynolds, as agents for the defendant, to raise for him on mortgage the money necessary to complete tho transaction. His Honor said ho was not satisfied that the defendant understood this to be the effect of tho letter when ho signed it, or understood that if Ins offer was accepted ho would bo bound to pay tho purchase money in cash, whatever might bo tho terms on which Park, Reynolds could raise tho necessary money, or even if they were unable to raise tho money at all. And if, as Mr Nicholson said, tho plaintiff was not concerned at all witlr tho question of the mortgages, why did he insert a provision on the subject in the formal contract bo got tho plaintiff to sign on May 17 P That document stated that tho sum of £3OO was paid down as a deposit and in part payment of the purchase, and provided that the balance of the purchase money was to bo paid as follows; —“ Buyer to raise as much as possible on first mortgage, the balance to bo arranged by second mortgage. Tho buyer to pay the sum of £2 per week to go for the reduction of interest on the two mortgages, and tho balance to be applied to reduction of the second mortgage.” On the face of tho letter the reference to mortgages appeared to bo part of tho offer, and His Honor was not convinced that it was intended to bo anything else, ■assuming that extrinsic evidence was admissible for tho purpose of proving that it was so intended. If that reference was to be treated as part of the offer, then several questions m connection with the mortgages were left open, and tho result was to make the offer so indefinite that it could not ba made tho basis of a contract. That was admitted by counsel, and' the plaintiff had failed to prove that there was any concluded contract between the parties. Judgment for defendant, with costs according to scale as on a claim for £6OO. with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar.