SALE AGREEMENT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 183, 20 August 1937, Page 6

SALE AGREEMENT

Our Own Correspondent)

10,000-Acre Hawke's Bay Station

COURT'S INTERPRETATION

(From

. AUCKLAND, Last Night. An action to obfain interpretation of au agreement for sale and purchasc of about 10,000 acres ' of , land in Hawke's Bay was brouglit in the Supreme Court before' Mr Justice Ostler. The plaintiff was Norman Heaton Pik'e (Mr Anderson) and tlie defendants Athol Umfrey Wells and Harry Wilsou Wells (Mr Munro), The agreement in question was entered into in April, 1935. The point at issue was whether the transfier by plaintiff of a first mortgage for £6000 was complete payment for the defendants' Hawke's Bay property; or whether the mortgage was given by way of security for the carrying-out of the conditiohs of the agreement for sale and 'purchase, which ineluded other matters'as wrell as the sale of the land. Plaintiff contended that by the transfer'of the mortgage he had completely paid for the defendants' land, but the defendants claimed that the mortgage was given by way of- security for the due perf ormance of the various conditions of the contract. Mr Anderson said that plaintiff would ultrmately have to go before an adjustment commisslon, and it was material to lcnow whether the land had been paid for. After hearing plaintiff 's evidence, his Honour said that apparently, if plaint?Ii; got possession of the land, the defendants could whistle for the £2500 mentioned in the agreement which they had advanced to, plaintiff. Mr Anderson said they held that that was what the agreement meant. His Honour: lf I ean iight against that interpretation of it 1 shall take particular care to do so. In deciding laler against plaintiff, his Honour said he must read the agreement as a . whole, It was an a'greemont, he held, to sell the property for £6000 in money, not for a £6000 mortgage. Plaintiff brolce the terms of the agreement, and he never tendercd to tlie defendants the £4300 and the other moneys agreecl ou. Nevertheiess, he claimed tiiat he was eutitled to a dbciaxation that the whole of the purchase money had been. paid. But his Jjonour decided that he was not eutitled to that declaration. His Honour expiessed the opiniou that the agrec nient had already been rc.scinded;