INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT

Southland Times, Issue 23229, 18 June 1937, Page 4

INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT

COUNCIL AND PACIFIC THEATRES

Reserved decision has been given by Mr Justice Kennedy on an application made in the Supreme Court at Dunedin on March 12 by the Invercargill City Council (Mr James Robertson), which sought an interpretation of an agreement with Pacific Theatres, Ltd. At the hearing Mr Robertson argued that the agreement did not constitute a lease Under the Mortgagors and Lessees Rehabilitation Act, and that, therefore, there was no right to apply for relief. He also contended that a letter received by the council from the company did pot constitute a notice of renewal.

“Two questions are raised by this originating summons,” says his Honour. “Before the present application was made to this court an application had been made by the defendant to the Court of Review at Invercargill for the adjustment of its liabilities, claiming a measure of relief in respect of a document described as a lease. The Court of Review, in which proceedings are pending, will no doubt decide in due course whether the document is a lease or whether it is a licence, and whether the defendant is entitled to an adjustment of its liabilities. This case is without any special features. It does not involve any broad question of principle and in fact raises a question of a kind frequently arising in the Court of Review. I think the matter should be left to be decided in the ordinary course by the court in which the question arises and that in the exercise of discretion this court should make no order.

“The second question raised is whether the letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dated December 4, 1936, is a notice within the meaning of paragraph 1 of the agreement dated February 28, 1936, giving the defendant a right to renewal of the hiring for a period of two years. The document alleged to be a notice is at most a fresh offer. The renewal contemplated in paragraph 31 of the agreement is a renewal for a period of two years, while the letter of December 4,1936, proposes, something different, namely, a term for a period of one year with three renewal periods of one year each. The second question is answered ‘no.’ Costs' as arranged are reserved.’