THE SALE OF A FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15767, 16 November 1914, Page 3

THE SALE OF A FARM.

LENGTHY COURT CASE.

Legal argument was heard by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court on Saturday in the case of William Hayward (Mr. B. Wynian) v. A. 0. Otto and Co. (Mr. W. D. Anderson), a claim for the return of £50 paid as deposit on the sal© of a farm at Raaorback and £35 damages. Mr. Anderson submitted that Otto and Co. had apparent authority to make a contract, and therefore the principals were bound by that contract. Moreover the fact that Smedley'"'had allowed Hayward to take possession of the farm was a sufficient acknowledgment of his approval of the sale, and laid him open to be sued by Hayward for an enforceable contract. Otto and Co. had actually had authority to sell, and therefore could not be sued for a breach of warranty. Mr. Kettle pointed out that a strong point against the defendants was that they have handed the key of the house on the farm to Hayward and had allowed him to take possession without first obtaining" the sanction of Smedley and his partner. Mr. Anderson submitted that the point did not affect Hayward in his relations to Otto and Co. Mr. Wyman proceeded to quote legal authorities to show that the defendants had not sufficient authority to sell to Hayward. His Worship said he was quite satisfied that Otto and Co. had no authority to bind Smedley and his partner to a' sale on the terms of the agreement drawn up by them and signed by Havward. Tho question was, had there been "an enforceable contract between plaintiff and defendants.. Mr. Wyman then applied to have the claim amended to one of breach of warranty of authority to give up possession. Mr. Anderson said he would claim the right to call further evidence as he had not cross-examined the witnesses to any extent on this new contention. The claim was upheld, and the case adjourned until to-morrow.