Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

CLAIM FOR £IOOO

BUILDING CONTRACT CASE

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[BY TELEGRAPH —PBESS ASSOCIATION]

CHRISTCHURCH, Saturday

Judgment for plaintiff was delivered this morning by Mr. Justice Ostler in a case in which P. Graham and Son, Limited, building contractors, sought for an order against David Manson and Alexander Hamilton Forbes, company directors, for specific performance of a contract to buy debentures totalling £IOOO in Regent Street, Limited. The action related to a financial adjustment in the building of the shops of Regent Street. The claim set out that part of the financial arrangements were between plaintiff company the defendants individually. The defendants were two directors of Regent Street, Limited. A former director of Regent Street, Limited, J. J. Dougall, solicitor, was not a defendant. f

At the hearing on Thursday counsel for plaintiff said Regent Street, Limited, was a company formed for the purpose of constructing the street known as Regent Street, and erecting the > shops in that street. The contract price between the parties was about £24,000. The sum of £19,000 had been raised on first mortgage from the Government Life Insurance Department, and that was to be 'paid to the builder, the plaintiff company. That left about £SOOO owing to the'contractor. To secure that, plaintiff insisted on the issue of the debentures, and the undertaking from the directors to buy £SOO worth each. That meant that at least £ISOO would be secured. The remainder of the debentures could be disposed of as suited plaintiff.. Counsel said Mr. Dougall had paid for the debentures. The real question before the Court was whether the undertaking was a joint one or a several one with each director personally responsible. Counsel for the defendants said the defence was a denial of the specific words "afr par" with relation to the debentures. The defendant company, it was held, was entitled to buy the shares at the same price as the public. The judgment concluded: "If the contract is not specifically performed withia one week the plaintiff company may enter judgment against each of the defendants for £SOO "damages for breach of contract.With regard to costs, there will be an order that defendants do each pay one half of the plaintiff company's costs on the highest scale, as on a claim for £IOOO, ' with witnesses' expenses and disbursements."

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19321128.2.89

Bibliographic details

CLAIM FOR £1000, New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21351, 28 November 1932

Word Count
384

CLAIM FOR £1000 New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21351, 28 November 1932

Working