FARMER AND BANK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22391, 11 April 1936, Page 14

FARMER AND BANK

AROWHANA STATION CASE ARGUMENT FOR RESPONDENT [BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] » WELLINGTON. Thursday The address of counsel for respondent, Mr. A. H. Johnstone, K.C., was continued in the Appeal Court yesterday in the case in which W.D. Lysnar is appealing against the judgment of Mr. Justice Blair, fixing the amount of damages to which appellant was entitled by virtue of a breach of contract by the National Bank of New Zealand regarding appellant's Arowhana station.-

r Mr. Johnstone dealt with Mr. Lysnar's claim for £42,000 in connection with repudiation of the contract of May 1, 1931, and contended that prior to * that date appellant undoubtedly owed the bank £72,000, for which tlio bank held certain securities. On May 1, 1931, a contract later held by the Privy Council to be a binding contract was made, and by that contract the bank agreed to vary the mortgages by. accepting £30,000 m five years, with interest at 5 per cent, in place of the £72,000 owing. There was a further provision in the contract, said counsel, that the bank was to assist, but btfore anything was done the bank repudiated the contract and made it clear it did not intend to be bound by that contract, but regarded its securities as subsisting for £72,000. Further, the bank refused to give the promised assistance. Counsel submitted that repudiation by one party to a contract did not amount in law to rescission, except where repudiation applied to the whole agreement, as it did here, but that as a" rule there must be two parties to rescission. Mr. Lysnar had accepted the repudiation, and the contract therefore was rescinded, but he could hare treated the contract as subsisting. Counsel then reviewed the evidence relating to the condition of the properties formerly held by Mr. Lysnar. The hearing was adjourned until April 21.