A DISPUTED PROPERTY DEAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18442, 18 April 1928, Page 9

A DISPUTED PROPERTY DEAL.

CLAIM MADE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

A claim for specific performance was made in the Supreme Court this morning before Mr Justice Adams. The case arose through an agreement to an exchange of properties which was never completed. The defence alleged fraud. Ivy Violette King, a music teacher, of Christchurch, was the plaintiff, and Laurie Constance Hudson, a widow, of Christchurch, was defendant. Mr Thomas appeared for plaintiff and Mr Donnelly for defendant. In her statement of claim plaintiff set out that by an agreement on October 20, 1927, defendant had contracted to buy a property from plaintiff known as No. 456, Manchester Street, for £2OOO. Plaintiff was ready- to perform the agreement, but defendant refused to carry out her side of the contract, and plaintiff sought an order that defendant should specifically perform her part of the agreement and accept a transfer and possession of the property. The defence denied the claims made by the plaintiff. It was contended by the defence that an agreement was procured by the alleged fraud of the plaintiff’s agent, a land agent named Wallace. who acted for both parties on a proposed exchange. Wallace had submitted an offer in writing by plaintiff to purchase defendant’s property at £I2OO. Defendant refused this offer. While the question was being discussed the telephone rang and Wallace said that another land agent had been negotiating with plaintiff for an exchange, and st.rongly r urged defendant to sign the offer.

It was fvirther alleged that the statements made by Wallace were untrue. The agent Badger at no time had an offer from plaintiff to buy another property. and Wallace falsely stated that such was the case in order to persuade defendant to accept the offer. It was alleged that the whole of the proceedings in Wallace's office were a fraud to induce Mrs Hudson to accept the offer. Defendant asked that the agreement be rescinded. How the Deal Arose. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Thomas said that the properties of both plaintiff and defendant were in the hands of Wallace, Wade Company, Ltd., for sale or exchange. The property at New Brighton, owned by Mrs Hudson, was on the market for £I2OO. Then an offer was made by Mrs King for the transfer of her place to Mrs Hudson for £2OOO, subject to a £IOOO mortgage. Mrs Hudson, in her turn, was to transfer her New Brighton home to Mrs King for £I2OO, subject to a mortgage of £4OO. A little time after Mrs Hudson had accepted the offer she went to the agent Wallace and told him that he had bluffed her and that other agents had Mrs King’s house on the market at £1650. Mrs Hudson also complained to Mrs King. Mrs King said that, if Mrs Hudson could bring proof that the house could be bought for £1650 she would let Mrs Hudson have the property at that prifre. This Mrs Hudson failed to do, but she offered to take the place at different prices which rose from £1650 up to £I9OO. Mrs King refused to depart from her original contract, which she sought in the Supreme Court to have fulfilled. “ Became Annoyed.” Ivy King, a music teacher, said that she had placed her property in the hands of Wallace Wade and Co. for sale. She knew that early in October Mrs Hudson had inspected the house owned by witness, witness in return inspecting the house at New Brighton. The deal proceeded satisfactorily to the point where witness rang Mr Wallace and asked him how the transfer was progressing. Mr Wallace replied that Mrs Hudson, was about to sign the deal, which was eventually- performed. Witness stated over the telephone that Mrs Hudson was lucky, as other agents had been keen to complete a deal on her property. Later Mrs Hudson became annox-ed and would not carry on with the contract. She alleged that Mrs King had her property for sale with other agents at £1650. Witness denied this and offered to allow Mrs Hudson the difference in price if she could prove her allegations. Nothing was done, however, and a writ was issued fourteen days afterwards.

Land Agents’ Statements. Tames Oliver Wallace, a land agent gave evidence regarding the transae tions in connection with the two pro perties.

George Maddams, a land agent employed by Wallace, said he remembered Mrs Hudson coming in the day the contract was made. He corroborated the evidence of Wallace. To Mr Donnelly: He knew that Mrs Hudson would have been pleased to have received her original price. £I4OO, instead of £I2OO. Mr Wallace did not say that Mrs King had rung up to say she wanted to withdraw her offer, while informing Mrs Hudson of the telephone conversation. Mrs Hudson had not said she would like to see her lawyer before she signed the contract. The name of her lawyer had not cropped up at all until after the contract was signed. This closed the case for plaintiff. Evidence for the Defence. Laurie Constance Hqdson, the defendant, said she saw Wallace and put her property at New Brighton in his hands at £I4OO. Wallace asked witness to consider an exchange of her property with Mrs King. Witness called on Wallace in his office in connection with Mrs King’s offer for an exchange. Wallace had a paper in his hand which he threw across the table, saying, “That is the best I can do for you.” He further said that he had had some difficulty in getting Mrs King to make an offer at all and it was only by a threat to turn her business down that Mrs King had drawn up an agreement. When witness saw the price of her property had been reduced to £I2OO she refused the offer. Wallace then turned to witness after listening to the telephone and said, “Mrs King wants to turn the offer down. She has an exchange arranged through Badger, with some cash in it.” Wallace then told Mrs King over the telephone that he would find out what Mrs Hudson was going to do. Turning to witness, he said, “Now hurry up, Mrs Hudson, and make up your mind what you are going to do. If you don’t hurry Badger will have the property.” Maddams then urged witness to sign, saying that Wallace could look after witness quite as well as her solicitor could. Witness then signed the agreement.

To Mr Thomas: When witness was in conversation with Mrs King a few days after the signing of the contract, Mrs King informed witness that she had not rung up Wallace on the afternoon the contract was signed. Witness was of the opinion that both Mrs King and Wallace were telling lies over the whole deal but she had failed to check them on the matter. Witness denied that she had made an offer to Mrs King to settle on her property at £1650. That statement was an untruth on the part of Mrs King. Witness had never made any offers to Mrs King in Lhe matter at all. She was prepared to settle on the basis of £2OOO for Mrs

King’s property and £I4OO for her own. Ilis Honor, in summing up, said that the allegation of fraud was not proved. The defendant. by some reason or other, appeared to have misstated the facts. Plaintiff’s prayer for specific performance must succeed under the circumstances. A decree was then entered for specific performance with costs according to scale, disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar. The counter-claim to rescind the agreement was dismissed.