DISPUTE OVER LAND DEAL

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1933, Page 9

DISPUTE OVER LAND DEAL

PROPERTY ON EGMONT ROAD. QUESTION OF DAMAGES. Damages for breach of contract in connection with the sale and purchase of a leasehold property on Egmont Road were claimed by. W. D. Linn from Harold A. Meads at the New Plymouth Court yesterday. It was admitted fbat the contract to purchase had been fulfilled an Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., was asked to measure the damages, which plaintiff claimed should be £B6 18s Bd. Judgment was reserved, the magistrate saying he would give his decision as soon as possible. ~ Opening the case for Linn, Mr. xi. J. Brokenshire explained that the property comprised 31 acres and was sub-leased by Linn to a tenant for a year at £2B 16s, plus the rates. At the time of the disposal of the lease 'by him to Meads the tenant was P. Woods, and although his tenancy had a further three months to run, arrangements .were made for him to vacate immediately in favour of Meads, by allowing him a half years rent and rates. He vacated, but it had been found impossible, since Meads had failed to complete, to dispose -of the lease or to get another tenant. Lipn therefore had been placed in the position of' having to fulfil the covenants in the lease, without any corresponding benefit to himself, and he had been involved in the costs relating to the transaction, and loss of profit from thb tenancy, and the cost of fulfilling the covenants of the lease; it was for these matters that the claim was brought. ■ • Evidence on these lines was given by Linn, and Henry F. Wolfenden, land salesman for the Farmers’ Co-operative Organisation Society, gave particulars concerning the negotiation--of the transaction. The original lessors insisted on the performance of the covenants of the lease,, he’said. ' Cross-examined for the defence by Mr. H. Weston, Wolfenden said the question whether £55 .was a fair price to ask for the lease was a matter for the purchaser. He certainly tried to .get it for less, but was content to enter into, an agreement to purchase at the price. . Mr. Weston submitted that some of the items in the claim were in excess of what should be allowed. He submitted that the suggestion that the property was now unmarketable should not, be taken into account, as Linn had his remedy in specific performance, but he had chosen to sue for damages. It was submitted that the special damages should not be more than £l5 17s 3d, that the £lO paid as deposit should be taken on account of general damages, and that Linn was not entitled to more than that amount. No evidence was called for the defence.