Shares in Remuera Picture Theatre

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 83, 29 June 1927, Page 15

Shares in Remuera Picture Theatre

THE BUILDER’S CONTRACT

CLAIM FOR £3,280

Claiming that he agreed to take 2,000 shares in the picture theatre, providing he was given the contract of building the theatre at a contract price of not less than £14,800, George Henry Edwards, builder, of Mount Albert, proceeded against the Remuera Theatre Company, before his Honour, Mr. Justice Reed, this morning, for the sum of £3,280, being loss claimed on the alleged breach of contract. Mr- Fotheringham appeared for plaintiff and Mr. E. H. Northcroft for the defen company. The claim was made up as follows: plaintiff and £1,280, being 10 per cent, on the contract price, less £2,000. For ae plaint 4 Mr. Fotheringhan s:ated that on November 8, 1926, plaintiff took out 2,000 shares in defendant’s company, paying £4OO with the application, on the condition that plaintiff should erect a theatre at Reniuera at a contract price of not less than £j.i,Boo. Plaintiff was approached by the brokers Messrs. Brownrigg and Chapman, and was informed that in consideration of his taking 2,000 shares uey would undertake to secure the contract for him for the erection of the theatre. In the plans and specifications plficed in plaintiff’s hands, a clause was contained stating that the company woulv. become bound on the day it was prepared to start, business. A definite cont-act for the building of the theatre was never signed, although a draft contract was drawn up for perusal. Eventually the company decided not to go any further in the deal with Edwards, and another contractor was engaged. “NO DEFINITE CONTRACT” Mr. Northcroft intimated that he would contend that no contract in certainty existed. He pointed out that no definite price hid been fixed, the words “not less than £14,800” being used. No real contract, he contended, could have been formed. In evidence, plaintiff said when he heard that he was expected to take 2,000 shares in the undertaking, he said he would not do so unless the price of the shares were added to the contract. His Honour: I can’t see the advantage to the company. Mr. Northcroft: You did not say anything to Mr. Brownrigg about this pretty little arrangement. Witness: I said I would take the shares if the price of the contract was fixed at £14,800. Witness stated that he thought that the shares might prove valueless, and the £3,208 was subject to them proving so. He had never done anything that might be a breach of contract on his price. THE SHARE STIPULATION

Arthur James Good, a director of a local firm of contractors, said that his firm had been approached to erejit the theatre in question. They were prepared to do so for £13,500, but refused the contract on account of the stipulation which required them to take 2,000 shares in the theatre. Mr. Northcroft submitted that the substantial objection to plaintiff’s case was that there was no certain case on which he could seek damages. At the time the offer was made there was no certainty either in regard to the price or as to some of the details Tne plans and specifications, he contended, were also of such a nature that the commencement of the work could not have been made. In regard to the shares, counsel said that the brokers had undertaken to return plaintiff’s allotment money and transfer his shares if they were not successful in obtaining the contract for him. On two separate occasions the defendant company had attempted to carry out their agreement.