BANK AND CLIENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXX, Issue 21449, 24 March 1933, Page 12

BANK AND CLIENT

REPLY TO MR. LYSNAR

CASE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[by telegraph—press association]

WELLINGTON, Thursday

The hearing of the appeal by William Douglas Lysnar, of Gisborne, in a case against the National Bank of New Zealand, was continued in the Court of Appeal to-day. In August, 1932, a writ was issued by Lysnar against the bank, claiming over £50,000 for alleged breach of contract. The, action was heard in the Supreme Court and Mr. Justice MacGregor gave judgmen.t against plaintiff. The Judge held that a' contract had not been proved. The appeal was against that decision.

Opening the case for the respondent, the National Bank, this morning, Mr. Hislop said it was clear that all along there was a dispute between Mr. Lysnar and the bank as to the control of revenue from the farm concerned. Counsel submitted that Mr. Lysnar was confusing the issue when he said the East Coast Commissioner objected to the management of the bank. Clearly what Mr. Lysnar wanted was not the management of the farm by the commissioner but management by himself. Mr. Hislop submitted further that there was no contract between the parties because the alleged contract was one between the bank, Mr. Lysnar and the East Coast Commissioner and because one of the most important terms of the contract (that of management) had not been communicated to the commissioner who, therefore, had not accepted its terms. A letter which was said to conclude the contract was not an unconditional acceptance of Mr. Lysnar's offer but was rather a counter offer by the bank. Counsel submitted that Mr. Lysnar had alleged a three-party contract in his pleadings and now he could not tell the Court there was only a two-party contract between himself and the bank. Even, however, if there were a two-party contract the terms of this were as set out by witnesses for the bank and not as alleged by Mr. Lysnar. This contract, however, Mr. Lysnar had repudiated when ho refused to be bound by essential terms. Counsel further submitted that evidence was admissable by the Court to show that the contract between the parties had been subsequently varied. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.