LEASE OF A SHOP

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 41, 18 February 1930, Page 18

LEASE OF A SHOP

DECLARATION SOUGHT

A declaration that she had validly rescinded a contract entered into by her to purchase the lease and' goodwill of a fruit shop in Island Bay was sought by Lily Olive Sumner, married woman, oi Wellington, in the Supremo Court yesterday. The defendant was Laurence Charles Purton, also of Wellington. The Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) was on the Bench. Mr. W. Peny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. fa. Hanna, with him Mr. J. D. Willis, for the defendant. ■'~',, , • *•-* In her statement of claim, the plaintiff set out that in June, 1929, by an agreement in writing, she agreed to purchase the lease and goodwill of the defendant's fruit shop at 130, The Parade, Island Bay, for £300. The contract was partly performed by the plaintiff paying £300 and taking possession of the premises, but the lease had never been assigned to her. It was alleged that in order to induce the plaintiff to complete the contract the defendant represented that : the business showed a profit of 50 per cent., and that the trade averaged not less than £50 a week. The plaintiff contended that both the representations were untrue, and as soon as she discovered the position she elected to rescind the contract. She claimed fa declaration that the contract had been validly rescinded, the,return of the £300, £18 stamp duty, apd £100 damages. Alternatively, she --i claimed £418 damages, if rescission could not be had. As a further alternative course of action, the plaintiff claimed £100 damages for alleged breaches of terms of the contract regarding a transfer of the lease,- tuition, buying and carting, and the supply of potatoes. For the defence, it was urged that the plaintiff had not been induced to buy the business, on account of the representations contained in the contract, but had made her own inquiries and acted upon the information she received. At the time the defendant made the representations he honestly believed them to be true. The plaintiff had elected to confirm and ratify the purchase, and, moreover, it was contended, by her delay and acquiescence and the impossibility of restoring the parties to the position they occupied before the purchase she was disentitled to rescission or repayment. The defendant denied that he had failed to comply with any of the provisions of the contract.