AN INTERESTING CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9140, 8 May 1908, Page 4

AN INTERESTING CASE.

At the sittings of the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, the case between Arthur J. Joyce, of Utiku (appellant), and George Wood, of Feilding (respondent)—an appeal from a decision of Mr Justice Cooper—was heard.

Mr Sfcerrett, K.O.'(with him Mr Johnson), appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr Bell, K.O. (with him Mr Fitzherbert), for respondent. The facts in this case were briefly as follows :—Wood set forth in the Supreme Court that Joyce on Jnne 6th, 1907, agreed to purchase from him tnrough J. T. Barry, land agent, lot 5, section 149, township of San- i don, for £I6OO, the terms being: Cash £SOO, and balance about 3% years at 5% per cent. The agreement was expressed in the following words: , “Mr Barry, Dear Sir, —I have decided to take the property of Mr Wood, and enclose a cheque for £SO as deposit, conditionally that when I pay the balance as arranged on August Ist, 1907, I obtain possession. Kindly send receipt and oblige Yours, etc., A. J. Joyce.” Some correspondence which had passed between the parties was submitted to the Court. It would appear, inter alia, that on June 13th, Wood inquired whether Joyce was willing to forego the purchase. Mr Joyce replied on June 25th, that they would forego for £l5O. Next day Wood intimated that he had decided to let the purchase go on. However, on July 30fch, 1907, counsel for Joyce notified Wood that he did not see his way to complete the purchase. Wood therefore claimed, (1) that Joyce might be ordered to specifically perform and carry out his part of the agreement, and (2) the sum of £IOO damages, or in the alternative, in the event of Joyce being unable to specially perform his part of the agreement, £SOO damages. On behalf of Joyce it was pleaded that if he did enter into a contract to purchase, such contract was not a sufficient contract within section 4of the Statute of Frauds 92, Charles IT., 1 chap. 3; also that if it were proved that there was sufficient writing then there was no concluded contract. During the argument it was elicited that the agent for the vendor went to the vendor and signed a writing which contained all the terms of the purchase, but he did not communicate tot he purchaser which writing he had signed. All the agent did was to telegraph to the purchaser that deposit had been received, that the vendor had accepted and that the matter of possession had been arranged. , Mr Justice Cooper held that subsequent letters from the purchaser referring to the purchase were sufficient to adopt and incorporate all the terms in the memorandum given by the agent for the vendor to the vendor. Judgment was given for Wood with costs on the highest scale as on a claim for £I6OO. This was the decision appealed from. The Court reserved its decision.