SALE OF PROPERTY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18851, 2 May 1923, Page 3

SALE OF PROPERTY.

A DISPUTED CONTRACT. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., H. E. Morris v. Elizabeth Wheeler, claim £IOO on an account stated between plaintiff to defendant on February 23 last, when defendant gave plaintiff an I O U for the sum named. Mr P. S. Anderson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr W. G. Hay for defendant. Mr Anderson said that on February 23 a firm of land agents, through their salesman, contracted to sell plaintiff’s house for £625. The - contract provided for a deposit of £IOO and payment of the balance in cash on the date fixed. Defendant had declined to carry out the contract, under tho terms of which the deposit was to be forfeited if the balance of the purchase money was not paid on the date fixed. Default had been made, and plaintiff now sought to obtain the £IOO deposit, for which an I 0 U had been given; Evidence was given in support of plaintiff’s claim.

Mr Hay, in addressing the court, contended that the I O U was not a negotiable instrument, as it had been given to the agents, and could not be passed from one to another. The alleged contract was conditional upon it being approved of by tho solicitor next day. Even if it were a complete contract it had been induced by misrepresentation, to the effect that the solicitor had approved. The action was an attempt to settle an issue that should be brought in the Supreme Court for specific performance. Mr Hay then called evidence, and counsel addressed' the court on points of law.

The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said in effect that defendant and her husband thought that the contract had to be approved of by the solicitor next day,'but it was not clear that this had been made plain to the agent in the matter. He would leave that question undecided. But he was satisfied that material misrepresentation had been made. It was quite clear that Mr Alloo, defendant’s solicitor, could not have approved of the sale at the price, as it amounted to his approving of his client throwing away the sum of £IOO. He was therefore satisfied that the representations made were not true, and that Mr Alloo had not approved of the transaction. That being the position defendant had been right in rescinding the contract, and as a consequence of this the debt behind the I O U was cancelled, which in turn annulled the I D U. Judgment was given for defendant, with costs.