BREACH OF WARRANTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19743, 16 September 1927, Page 14

BREACH OF WARRANTY.

COMPLICATED LAND DEAL. STRONG COMMENT BY JUDGE. "MOST UNSATISFACTORY CASE." [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT,] HAMILTON. Thursday. A complicated land transaction in which six parties were concerned was discussed at length before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Hamilton Supreme Court to-day. Mrs. Burnett Rollo, Hamilton (Mr. J. F. Strang), proceeded against Thomas Edwards Eyre, farmer, Woodleigh (Mr. A. L. Tompkins), for the recovery of £ISOO for alleged breach of warranty. His Honor, during the case, described the transaction as a most extraordinary one. Mr. Strang explained that a man named Oliver Sextus Blair, bootmaker, Auckland, owned a property of 1167 acres at Great Barrier Island. Eyre represented himself as the agent of Blair and while purporting to act in that capacity, he agreed to sell the property to Mrs. Rollo. It had since been shown that Eyre had no authority to act as Blair's agent and Blair repudiated the transaction. Eyre later admitted that he had no authority to sign the agreement. Mrs. Rollo now sued Eyre for breach of warranty, owing to the loss of her bargain. As there was no prospect of obtaining £ISOO from defendant, counsel reduced the. claim to £SOO. Contention by the Defence. For the defence it was contended that Blair authorised Eyre to negotiate for a sale or exchange of the land owned by Blair. Defendant admitted that he entered into an agreement on behalf of Blair with the plaintiff, but said that at the time the agreement was made defendant had not received any authority from Blair and that this fact was known to plaintiff. Defendant denied that the plaintiff had lost the benefit of the bargain, and he alleged fraud against plaintiff. Percy Harold Watts, a solicitor practising at Hamilton, said he drafted the agreement between Eyre and Mrs. Rollo on May 19, and acted as solicitor for both parties. He asked Eyre if he had authority to sign for Blair, and Eyre replied that he had. If Eyre had stated that the agreement was subject to Blair's approval witness would have held up the transaction. Mrs. Rollo did not take part j in the negotiations and Rollo acted for her On July 18 Eyre admitted to witness that he had no authority to act for Blair. | The Position o! Rollo. Witness said he was finding the money ■ for Rollo, who was an undischarged bank- j rupt. Witness said he was giving Rollo ■ every penny and was going to take se- j curity over the farm and the stock at j tne Barrier, tie had some sections valued j at £llOO at Frankton, and he gave Rollo j the opportunity of acquiring them in exchange for the Barrier property. If these sections were not acceptable to defendant witness would have advanced Hollo the money required. It was agreed to • reduce the value ot the equity in the Barrier property and the value of witness' \ Frankton sections to £6Ol, and to transfer j the Frankton sections to Eyre's wife. The effect of the agreement was that j no cash would change hands. Mrs. Eyre, ' wife of defendant, would get witness" j Frankton sections and Mrs. Rolio would j get the Barrier property Mr. Tompkins was given leave to reserve the following non-suit points:—(l) ihat there was no contract by reason of ihe non-tulfilment of the conditions set out in the agieement, (2) no damages had oeen claimed which were recoverable in an action of this sort. Defendant (lives Evidence.

The defendant said that six mouths ago ins brother-in-law Blair, asked him to sell the Barrier property for hitb Blair said he would accept anything for it, provided a sound man bought it. Defendant met Rollo in Hamilton and Hollo referred to the Frankton sections as his property and said they were unencumbered. Witness agreed to exchange the sections for the Barrier property on Behalf of Blair, and considered he had .made a good bargain. Blair owed his sister, defendant's wife, money, and it was arranged that the sections should be transferred direct from Watts, who cvvned them, to Mrs Eyre. Rollo was in a hurry to get the agreement signed, otherwise it would have been submitted to Blair for signature. Defendant made it clear that the agreement was subject to Blair's approval. When Blair received the agreement and took it to his .Auckland solicitors, the latter gave certain advice to Blair, who then repudiated the agreement.

In giving judgment, His Honor described the transaction as a most unsatisfactory one. The plaintiff, defendant and Blair were impecunious, while Rollo was an undischarged bankrupt, and Eyre had been a bankrupt. His Honor found that Eyre had represented he had authority to act as agent for Blair, while, in fact, he had no such authority. He had committed a breach of warranty of authority. Dealing with the question of damages, His Honor said he did not like the transaction, and there was nothing meritorious revealed in the dealings that had taken place. It was difficult to assess the damages Mrs. Rollo had suffered, but he thought justice would be met if he gave judgment for plaintiff for £SO. and ordered each party to pay its • vn costs.