Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

/v.: JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was delivered by 1 Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday upon the claim made by Alexander Lawson, warehouseman, against George and Han--.-.Dah Oudaile for ,£59 as damages for .-breach,of contract, in respect to the 6ale ■,-;Qf.furniture and effects in an apartment . ; houso on Wellington Terrace.' - Messrs. Lingaril and Co., agents for .plaintiff,, took defendants to the pre...mises and.defendants agreed to purchase ' - the furniture, furnishings, etc., for ,£625, ■ ■and paid a deposit of £10. Defendants .stated, in evidence that the. plaintiff wrongly represented that under tho War Regulations: the _ rent of the premises .-could-not bo raised and that tho house . was to bo painted by the landlord. Later, -plaintiff's agent informed defendants ...that as the War Regulations did not ap-:i-ply to-thevhouse, tho rent could be in- • creased, and further, that tho landlord . bad no intention of painting the out- . .building. On receipt of this informa- ; tion defendants notified plaintiff that owing to misrepresentations they intended to-.cancel tho contract. Plaintiff de- • nied that there had been any misrepresentation, though he admitted that he -thought - the Tent could not bo raised as t -,the limit of eight per cent, under tho : .War Regulations had been reached. That -statement-tho Magistrate held was ono . of.union, requiring confirmation on tho part of the landlord. Under the circumstances, he was not prepared' to • ■•hold, that .that statement was a misregiving defendant the right to .cancel the contract. Neither did tho statements made in regard to the pafflting of the house givo ground for cancellation. Defendants further objected to plaintiff excluding some articles from an taken prior to the. paying of the deposit, but tney made no objection at the time, and evidence had been given thfvt all parties were satisfied after ( the inventory had heen taken. Judgment ■i was given for plaintiff for .£3(l ss. special damages and JJIO general damages, with costs £0 ss,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200218.2.61

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 123, 18 February 1920, Page 8

Word count
Tapeke kupu
315

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 123, 18 February 1920, Page 8

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 123, 18 February 1920, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert