Beauty Parlour Deal Leads to Litigation

Horowhenua Chronicle, 20 May 1933, Page 3

Beauty Parlour Deal Leads to Litigation

NO PROOF OF FRAXJDUUBNT MISREPRESENTATION WELLINGTON, Last Night. No proof of fraudulent misrepresentation was found by Mr Justice Ostler, in the Supreme Court case in which Ruby Mary Alberta Welch proceeded against Gertrude Morgan for rescission of a contract for the sale of a hairdressing business, together with £BIB, the purchase money. , After hearing plaintiff, his Honour said it appeared that the action was founded solely on false representation. There was no claim for breach of contract. ' Mr Mazengarb, for plaintiff, asked leave to amend the statement of claim by'alleging that, by agreement, Mrs Morgan undertook to instruct Mrs Welch fully, and she failed to do so. Mr Cornish, for defendant, said that when a charge of fraud was brought there should be evidence to support it. Mrs Morgan, in evidence, said she did not undertake to turn Mrs Welch' out as a'first-rate beauty specialist,. She was disappointed that Mrs Welch did not make more of her opportunities. Had she worked on enough living models and followed instructions, she should have been able to take charge of a salon. ( . His Honour, after heaping defendartt, said there was no proof of fraudulent misrepresentation. Her beliefthat Mrs Welch could learn the {business between August and January was not only honest, but also was not unreasonable.