TAINUI STREET SHOP

Greymouth Evening Star, 20 July 1945, Page 6

TAINUI STREET SHOP

QUESTION OF VALUE. Whether the actual value of a shop and section or the value of the site itself should be recognised was debated when the Westland Land Sales Committee /Messrs M. Wallace, chairman; J. W. Greenslade and J. Mulcare) sat on a case at Greymouth this; morning, when E. Rosewall sought the committee’s permission to sell to V/. C. and-A. S. Wright, Ins hairdresser and tobacconist shop _in Tainui Street, the price asked being £2.750. The vendor in evjdence said he had purchased the premises in 1937 at a price of £2,500, from F. B. Lawn, who had not been too willing to dispose of the nropertv, and he thought he had made a good buy. He had paid £l5O lor the lessees to vacate the premises, and then had to make extensive alterations and renovations to change the building from a cake shop to a tobacconist’s business. In ah the place cost him about £3,000. He had intended to ask £3,000 with £250 goodwill for the business as a going concern, with the stock and plajhi'at valuation. He had had other offers to purchase the premises at £2750 beside the one he had accepted. The shoo would have been worth more in 1942 because tobacco etc., was in more plentiful supply. The site of the shop was particularly good and comparable with the “bottleneck” in Christchurch. It-was the hub of the town. Mr. N. Clay who appeared for the Crown, asked’ for an indication of the committee’s attitude to the sale. He pointed out that the official value.was much less than the price asked, but lie did not think that the Land Sales Act had been designed to deprive a man of his just dues. He would not like to see the man robbed. He did not propose to call any evidence. The chairman pointed out that the •- ■ms could not be taken into If they were, the pur- ■ r. .1 no sold she business, could ■ .I.'k ‘iwl in-- remwaiiom; be conA fictitious value woiuci cUvi; oe made. He did not want to do anything that would prevent the vendor from getting back somewhere near the value he had paid for the property. Mr Greenslade said that the committee's trouble would be to protect or help the vendor. Mr. C. R. McGinley, counsel for vendor, submitted that, seeing vendor had made a capital expenditure of £3,000 in 1937 for the property, when he had had an option of places' in Albert Street and Mackay Street, that figure must be taken to be a fair market value for the property at that date. There had been several offers to purchase the business at £2.750, so there could be no doubt that that figure was the present market value. The question the committee had to decide was whether the market value at December. 1942, was £2,750. Vendor said that, his price for the business ns a going concern was £3,250 with stock’ and plant at value and several enquiries had been macle by prospective purchasers. However, the shortage of tobacco and smoking requisites had prevented a sale at that figure. However, tobacco stocks were normal in 1942, and it was submitted that vendor had he sold his business then would have got more than £2,750, and possibly £3,250. The committee reserved its decision. .