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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LYSNAR APPEAL

CONTINUATION OF HEARING

WELLINGTON, March 23

Opening the case for the .respondent, the National Bank, in the Court of Appeal, this morning, Mr Hislop said it was clear that all along thei'e was a dispute between Lysnar -and the bank, as t 0 the control of the revenue from the farm. He submitted that Lysnar wag confusing the issue when he said that th e East Cor.st- Comm:--s'oner objected to the management of the bank. Clearly, what Lysnar wanted was not the management of the farm by the Commissioner, but management by himself. He submitted further, that there was no contract between the parties because the alleged contract was one between the bank, Lysnar, and the East Coast Commissioner, and because one of the most important terms of the contract (that of management) had not been communicated to the Commissioner, he therefore had not accepted its terms. Tb. { > letter which \va G said to conclude th e contract was not an mieondfJW’onal acceptance of Lysnar’s offer, but was rather a counter-offer bv the bank.

Mr Hislop, counsel for th« National Bank -submitted "that Mf Lysnar had -alleged a three-party contract in -his pleadings, and now lie could‘not tell the Court there was only a two-par-y contract between «e!f and the bank. Even, however,, if thei’e- were a twoparty' contract, the terms of tins were •as set out by witnesses for the - bank and not as alleged by Mr hyenar. This conkra-ct, however, Mr Lysnar had repudiated when he refused to be bound by the. essential terms. He further submitted that evidence was admissible by the Court to show that- the contract between parties had been subsequently varied. Th; c v Cdtil't ’adjourned until tomorrow .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19330324.2.51

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1933, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
286

LYSNAR APPEAL Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1933, Page 6

LYSNAR APPEAL Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1933, Page 6

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