ERECTION OF HOUSE

Evening Star, Issue 22087, 22 July 1935, Page 10

ERECTION OF HOUSE

RETURN OF DEPOSIT CLAIMED FURTHER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL COURT Further evidence was heard in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., this morning in the case in which William John Carley and Edna Beatrice Carley proceeded against Land Sales Ltd., claiming a return of £55, the amount of a deposit paid as the result of an agreement between the parties regarding the building of a house, plus incidental expenses, the contract now being incapable of pei> formance by the defendant. Mr W. P. Hartstonge appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr C. L. Calvert for the defendant company. Arthur Herbert Brown, a builder, said he called at the office of Land Sales Ltd., and was asked to prepare a plan of a house for Carley. Afterwards an altered plan was prepared at the suggestion or the' male plaintiff. The estimated cost by Land Sales Ltd. of building the house was £790 7s, includingthe Unemployment Board’s subsidy. Witness’s price for the house was £735, and any sum above that would be handed back to the defendant company by witness. Later witness met a member of the defendant company, who asked witness not to tell Carley who was getting the subsidy. To Mr Calvert; Witness said he’was quite prepared to build the 'house for £735, which was quite a good workable price at the time. He decided not to build the house because Carley said he thought he was not getting the subsidy. It was possible there might be some trouble later on, so. he preferred to have nothing to do with it. Land Sales Ltd. were not entitled to the subsidy, and Carley was uneasy about the position. Witness did not object to Laud Sales Ltd. getting the subsidy, but Carley was the one who was entitled to it. It was news to him that the specifications mentioned in fie contract that Land Sales Ltd. were to get the subsidy. He was quite prepared to go on with the contract so long as Carley knew where the subsidy was going. Witness did not wfint the subsidy himself. If the plaintiffs and the defendant company had settled their differences he would Jiave been prepared to go on with the building before prices rose. John E. Mirams, solicitor, gave details regarding the question of and stated that nothing was arranged with the plaintiff to finance the building. It was stated by Mr Calvert that a deposit was a guarantee that a contract would be carried out. The sum of £SO was paid as an earnest that the contract would be carried out so far as was in the power of the purchaser, but the purchaser had refused to go on with the contract. The contract was a perfectly fair and binding one. The fairest disclosure was made at all times as to what Land Sales Ltd. were getting out of the contract. It did not matter whp got the subsidy, because it was arranged that the plaintiffs were to pay £835 for the house. The builder was prepared to build for £735, hut later refused to go on, which gave the plaintiff the opportunity to say that the contract was no longer possible. He suggested that there was an agreement between Carley and Brown that the contract be not proceeded with. Robert Cecil Reid, a salesman employed by the defendant company, gave evidence regarding arrangements made with Carley for the building of the house, and said the plaintiff was told that he would not receive the subsidy, which would go to Land Sales Ltd. . An . arrangement was made with the builder that he was to pay the defendant company’s commission out of his first progress payment. To Mr Hartstonge; It was arranged that the plaintiff should obtain the subsidy and hand it hack’ to the company. Thomas Herbert Black, a property salesman employed by Property Sellers Ltd., said he took Carley to Land Sales Ltd., and any deal made was to be a joint one between the two companies. After one or two points in the contract had been discussed between the magistrate and counsel for the defence, the case was adjourned until the afternoon.