APPEAL COURT
QUAKE CAR CASE. DEFENDANT GETS JUDGMENT. (By Telegraph—Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 12. In the appeal, Wright Stephenson and C-'o. Ltd. and others v. Holmes (heard -March 16), the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered tffday in favour of the defendant. Air Justice AlacGregor, in giving the judgment, said: “In the present case the policy sued on io, in its essence, a contract to repair a chattel, jf damaged.”
Tiie parties have ' not provided for the event of .a chattel being totally destroyed after damage occurs but before repair becomes possible. What, then, would be fair and reasonable in those circumstances ? It it not more fair and reasonable to imply a condition tp treat the contract an at an end rather than to compel the contractor to pay damages for breach of a contract which lie could not possibly perform, and on very doubtful evidence as to its real extent? In the result, it appears to us that to award damages to the plaintiff Imre for breach of the underwriters’ contract to repair would savour rather of profit than indemnity.” Costs of £33 15s and disbrusements were allowed.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320413.2.33
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1932, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
192APPEAL COURT Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1932, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in