NOMINAL COMPENSATION

Northern Advocate, 7 November 1931, Page 14

NOMINAL COMPENSATION

SHILLING FOR PLAINTIFF. BREACH OF WARRANTY CASE. (Received !) a.m.) SYDNEY, November (i. The hearing Avas concluded of the action brought by Australian Brokerage, Ltd., against the Australian and New Zealand Banking Corporation, alleging breach of warranty and misrepresentation. A series of questions was put to the jury, avlio found in favour of the defendants, on the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation, and for the plaintiff on the cause of the action for breach of Avarranty under the contract.

The jury found that there Avas no loss of profit to the plaintiff company OAving to the recession of the agreement Avith defendant bank. The jury assessed the loss of expeudiftm to the plaintiff company in preparing to carry out the agreement Avith the bank at £2500.

Mr Justice Stephen entered the* t'rlloAving verdict: 14 Verdict entered for plaintiff for one shilling, such eutrv by consent to he taken as formally returned by the jury under my direc tion.”

Ihe charges of breach of Avarranty and fraud were based upon statements in defendant company’s prospectus on June 30, 1030, that the plaintiff com pany had contracted last year to bo the sole broker of the defendant company in Australia with, right to sell or underwrite shares'at par to the extent of .€2,ooo,(i*f(o, in the (ajiital ' of defendant company.