Remuera Picture Theatre Shares

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 84, 30 June 1927, Page 7

Remuera Picture Theatre Shares

BUILDER’S CLAIM FAILS CONTRACT NOT PROVED Alleging breach of contract in connection with the building of a picture theatre at Remuera, George Henry Edwards (Mr. Fotheringham) proceeded against the Remuera Theatre Company, before his Honour Mr. Justice Reed yesterday, for the sum of £3,280. For plaintiff Mr. Fotheringham said that the amount claimed represented loss caused to plaintiff as the result of the company refusing to continue with a contract, claimed to have been let to him, for the erection of a theatre Remuera. On the understanding * that plaintiff was given a contract for the erection of the theatre at a price not less than £14,800, plaintiff took 2,000 shares, paying £4OO deposit with the application. The claim was made up of £2,000, the price of the shares, and £1,280, being 10 per cent on the contract price, less £2,000. Counsel stated that a definite contract was never signed, although plans and specifications placed in plaintiff’s hands contained a clause to the effect that the company would become bound on the day it was prepared to start business. Eventually the company decided not to go any further in the deal with Edwards, and another contractor was engaged NO DEFINITE CONTRACT For the defendant company, Mr. Northcroft contended that no contract in certainty existed. No definite price had been fixed, and the details on the plans and specifications submitted to plaintiff were not sufficient to 'enable him to commence the work, said counsel. The company had undertaken to refund the share money if a contract was not entered into, and on two occasions had wanted to do so. His Honour said there was nothing definite to show that plaintiff agreed to accept the 2,000 shares on the conditions stated. Under the circumstances the fact that the company had withheld the £4OO deposit had no direct bearing on the claim. Mr. Northcroft said the company had not been brought to court for recovery of the £430, but for damages. It had always been willing to pay the £4OO. After further legal argument his Honour made an order, by consent, that the register of the company should be rectified, rescinding the allotment of 2,000 shares to plaintiff, and remov'ing his name from the; register. An order was also made for tne £4OO paid in respect of the shares to be refunded.