PURCHASE OF OPTION

Hokitika Guardian, 13 June 1931, Page 3

PURCHASE OF OPTION

sham; IN A PAXJiXT. BALANCE TO BE BAH). The action to recover £259,. balance i>l an option to acquire a two lh 1 ,(• share of a patent r- frigerant process, was concluded vn the Supreme ' ourt at Wellington. Ni r Justice MacGregor gave judgment for the plaintiff on ilv claim and counter-claim. The action was by James Joseph Cronin, industrial chemist, Wellington (Mr Willis), against \'l H oin /Henry Edwards, Builder, 7 Pretoria Street, Lower Hutt (Air Cousins). Plaintiffs case was that the defendant and a man named Allen were to acquire a two-thirds interest in his patent process, £250 to be paid as deposit when the agreement was signed and £250 when the New Zealand par- nt rights were granted. Rights outside Y ew Zealand were to be developed later, and a company formed to develop th ,v rn.

Defendant denied liability and alleged misrepresentation on the part o) the plaintiff, who ( he said, had implied that the National Dairy Association of !Se\v Zealand rights for £2500. He counter-claimed for £250. Mr 'Willis, : <v» concluding the case for plaintiff, submitted that the agreement was divisible into two parts, the first clause relating to the option to purchase certain interests for £SOO on certain terms, with which the court was first concerned. The rema'ivng clauses were the terms and conditions on which the defendant could purchase if lie desired to do so. The main point of the agreement was the disposal of the, option, the matter of the formation ol j the company being one 'entirely for the defendant.

His Honour, in giving judgment, said he thought plaintiff was as anxious as defendant to effect the sale of the rights in Australia, but was anxious that the sale should bo a reasonable one. He was not satisfied that misrepresentation had been proved, and he accepted .the plaintiff’s case that the tiling of the specifications had Bren carried out. The agreement was in two par 4 * tb- first clause fifing distinct and independent of the rest, and being "ii a "'•"pm rut to purchase the option for £SOO. In regard to all the other points the answers of the defence could not prevail. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £250 on thp claim, and also on the counter-claim, with costs.