WOMAN’S “BAD BARGAIN’’

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 453, 7 September 1928, Page 7

WOMAN’S “BAD BARGAIN’’

PURCHASE OF FARM COURT ACTION FAILS Failing to prove misrepresentation in respect of the sale of a farm at Waimauku, a married woman, Esther Hamilton (Mr. Cocker) was non-suited in her action for the rescission of agreement against James Hodgson Finlay (Mr. Armstead and Mr. Stevens), land agents, heard before Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff bought the property of 50 acres in November last. She was told, she alleged, by defendant that within a year it would carry 30 cows. The farm was carrying 20 at the time of purchase. A few weeks afterward she had to turn the stock out on to the road to obtain pasture, and was ultimately forced to abandon the place. Evidence was called to show that the capacity of the farm was between eight and twelve cows. Plaintiff admitted relying on her own judgment to buy the place. Mr. Armstead moved for a non-suit on the ground that the evidence did not disclose any ground of action. He submitted the plaintiff had- relied on her own judgment in choosing the farm and had not been misled by anyone.

In non-suiting plaintiff his Honour said that he did not think it was quite as bad a bargain as appeared on the surface. There had been no evidence that defendant knew anything about the carrying capacity of the place and therefore the case failed ab initio Furtfler, plaintiff had relied practically entirely on her own examination of the property—a very unwise thing to do—and did not regard defendant V representations as having influenced her at all. It was a pity deefndant’s financial position prevented him from conceding what he was asked for. as that might have enabled plaintiff to carry on In the circumstances he did not think defendant should ask for costs.