HOUSE FOR BRIDE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21349, 25 November 1932, Page 14

HOUSE FOR BRIDE

BROKEN ENGAGEMENT

PREPARATION OF THE HOME

ACTION BY YOUNG MAN

GIRL'S FATHER DEFENDANT

"Preparations of a borne for a prospective bride and the sequel <>f a broken engagement were described in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Smith, when a young man sought the, return of money expended on a property from the father of his former fiancee. Plaintiff was Ronald Frederick George Quod lev, grocer (Mr. Inder), who claimed from Samuel Harris, retired builder (Mr. liudd and Mr. Williams), the sum of £-107 alleged to have been expended in performance of an agreement with defendant. Liability for payment of tho claim was denied, and it is was contended that plaintiff had contracted to buy the property from defendant for £404. Counsel for plaintiff said that in October, 1950, his client became engaged to defendant's daughter. A short time afterward defendant acquired a property at Birkdale, which he thought would make a good home for his daughter when she was -married. It was contended that defendant had proposed that he and plantiff should alter 'the building on the propcity to suit the daughter. "Girl Changes Her Mind" Defendant requested plaintiff to provide the money for the materials required, said counsel, and promised that upon the marriage of the couple he would make an arrangement that would more than reimburse him. Ho did not say so in as many words, but he indicated that he would probably make the property a wedding present to his daughter. Everything proceeded as arranged until the daughter changed her mind. With plaintiff she had selected wall papers and studied tho styles of other houses in order to decide upon the form of tho alterations to tho building. In June this year she broke off the engagement. Her mother offered to buy the engagement ring from plaintiff for £3O. Plaintiff now claimed £407 in reimbursement of tho money he had spent in altering and improving tho place.

Plaintiff said in evidence that 110 and his fiancee had inspected tho property. She indicated that she thought it would make a nico home for them when they were married. Her father said that if witness supplied the materials lie would alter tho" house free of charge. Later, after they had settled down, he would either hand the property to his daughter as a present or else let them have it at a small rental, just to pay interest on his equity in it. The question of witness purchasing the place had never occurred to witness.

Choosing the Wallpaper

The materials for the alterations were

ordered by defendant, to whom the majority of the accounts were made out. Miss Harris, with witness, chose wallpapers, tiles and various materials which she required. Witness would haye had no connection with the'place if 'he had not been going to marry defendant's tec. He was dismissed from-his employment, his employers considering that Birkdale was too far from his place of business, and he then went to live on tho property. All his time was then spent in altering lho place and improving tho ground, under tho direction of defendant and to his fiancee's instruction. Miss Harris then broke off their engagement and he had been unable to get her to change her mind. His solicitors had unsuccessfully demanded repayment from defendant of tho money expended. Samuel Harris said plaintiff had several times asked to buy tho property, and eventually he decided to let him havo it for £375. plus expenses, a total of £404. The £375 was the amount by which he, defendant, was out of pocket over his own acquisition of the property. Alleged Conditions o! Sale The conditions of tho sale were that plaintiff should make some alterations and ~ find the cost of the materials, the terms of repayment to bo three years, the first year free of interest. Plaintiff agreed to the conditions. The alterations wero made to suit plaintiff. Witness said he suggested that the agreement should be recorded, but plaintiff said ho might later bo out of work and any such agreement might prejudice his chance of obtaining relief work. After the engagement was broken off plaintiff offered £250 in payment of the £404 owing. Defendant said lie would consider accepting £3OO or £350, as he did not want to be hard on plaintiff. Subsequently plaintiff said be thought he would sell the place and witness offered to help him. The house had been completed all but the papering, and defendant- was si ill willing to sell the property to plaintiff in terms of the agreement. Ho had ordered some of tho materials himself so that plaintiff should get as much benefit as possible fiom discounts. Former Fiancer/s Evidence

Etiid Isobel Harris corroborated her father's evidence regarding an arrangement having been made by plaintiff to buy tiie place. She said plaintiff bad derided what alterations should bo made. He had'told her that he had offered her father £250 for the place, but that her father had refused. To Mr. Inder, witness said the engagement was broken off on a Sunday. There bad been a discussion. Ilcr mother offered to buy the engagement ring for £3O, but sho did not say it was for when the next boy came along. His Honor questioned whether there was need to hear any more witnesses. Ho was of opinion that there had been an agreement for sale and purchase.

" On the evidence" I have formed the view that there was an oral agreement for purchase at £404, with the first year free of interest," said His Honor. A good deal had been done to the property in the first year, but that was in terms of

the agreement. It seemed plain lo him that the purchaser must hear tho cost of the materials, and lie could not find «. basis for plaintiff's claim. Judgment was given for defendant.