SALE OF A HOUSE.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XIX, Issue 2052, 6 December 1924, Page 5

SALE OF A HOUSE.

BLACK VERSUS CARNACHAN. SUIT FOR DEPOSIT. At the Supreme Court at Hamilton before His Honor Mr JusticeHerdman, Alexander Black sued Robert Carnachan for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell a house at Te Kuiti, or in the alternative to recover a deposit of £25 and £205 damages. Mr Morton appeared for plaintiff and Messrs Vernon and Low for the defendant. Mr Morton contended that an agreement had been entered into between the parties, by which the defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff his house but had refused lo complete the transaction. He called the plaintiff, who said he had been approached by J, B. Young, a land agent, with a proposal that witness buy the house at a price of £625, £6OO on terms and £25 cash. He paid the £25 deposit to the agent. He knew nothing of any mortgage on the property. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case Mr Vernon asked for a non-suit, holding that the receipt produced, which plaintiff alleged constituted an agreement, was not sufficient lo satisfy the Statute of Frauds, because the terms of the contract were not included within the four- corners of the document. His Honor: Mr Morton, what have you to say to this? Mr Morton quoted Halsbury in support of his contention that payment of deposit was part performance of the contract, and this modified the force of the statute of 1677, requiring all the terms of contracts for the sale of land to be in writing. His Honor, reading further in the volume, pointed out that a subsequent passage specifically said that payment of earnest did not constitute part performance a contract to sell land. He dealt at some length with the requirements of the statute, the purpose of which was to prevent actions of this kind. The present case might be described as being upon the borderline between the sufficiency and insufficiency of the written terms. Plaintiff was non-suited with costs on the highest scale.