Collins v Wason
| Jurisdiction | Guyana |
| Judge | Mitchell, J. |
| Judgment Date | 21 September 1970 |
| Neutral Citation | GY 1970 HC 4 |
| Docket Number | 2195 of 1968 |
| Court | High Court (Guyana) |
| Date | 21 September 1970 |
High Court
Mitchell, J.
2195 of 1968
C.A. Hughes for the plaintiff.
M.G. Fitzpatrick for the defendant.
Real property - Landlord and tenant — Lease — Option to purchase
Sylvia Viola Collins, the plaintiff, is the relict of Sampson Nathaniel Collins, who died in 1949. On 10 th June 1944 S.N. Collins entered into an agreement of lease with William Nathaniel Wason, the husband of the defendant, in respect of a portion of Lot 42 Public Road, Kitty, East Coast Demerara. The agreement of lease as at Exhibit ‘B’ was initially for a period of ten (10) years from 1 st July 1944 with a right of renewal for a similar term of period at a rental of sixty dollars ($60.00) per annum and at paragraph 4 (four) of that agreement of lease it is stated:-
“The lessor agrees to give the lessee the option to purchase or lease the said lot 42 (forty-two) in the eventof his being desirous of disposing of same at anytime, and the lessee agrees likewise to give the lessor the option of acquiring any building which may be erected by him on the premises, the said option in each event shall be in writing and to be exercised within four months.”
S.N. Collins died on 21 st July 1949, before the expiration of the first ten (10) year period of the lease and Letters of Administration were granted on 31 st August 1949, to his widow, Sylvia Viola Collins, the plaintiff. After the death of her husband, she continued in occupation of the premises leased from Mr. Wason and continued to pay the rent.
According to the plaintiff, in 1954 she asked Mr. W.N. Wason to extend the period of the lease and he replied as at Exhibit ‘C’ requesting a new contract of lease, with an increase of the rent amounting to one hundred and twenty dollars ($120.00) more and giving her notice in that letter dated 14 th December 1954, that at the expiration of the period of ten (10) years ending the 1 st July 1964, he would require the possession of the portion of land leased by S.N. Collins. The plaintiff then replied in a letter dated 16 th December 1964, stating that she was notifying him that she was exercising her option to a renewal of the lease for a further period of ten (10) years from 1 st July 1954 to 1 st July 1964, on the same terms and conditions as the lease which expired on 1 st July 1954. She refused to execute a new lease with terms different from the old lease. She continued to pay the same rent of $60.00 (sixty dollars) per annum with the increases in rates as required by the initial agreement between her husband and Mr. W.N. Wason – Exhibit ‘B’. No new written agreement of lease was entered into between the plaintiff, either personally or in a representative capacity, and Mr. Wason and no lease vas actually executed embodying either the old or new terms. To all intents and purposes she embarked upon the occupation of the area of land leased for another ten (10) year period without the document of lease giving her the legal right to do so and without the formalities attendant upon such a document being lawfully executed.
On 6 th April 1959, William Nathaniel Wason sold and transported to his wife Diana Perry Wason the said lot 42 West of Queen Street, Kitty, without the buildings and erections thereon and including the area of land mentioned in the agreement of 1944 and leased to S.N. Collins and occupied by his administratrix, the plaintiff since 1957. Prior to this, however, in a letter dated 3 rd February 1956, Exhibit ‘X’, William Nathaniel Wason had written to and thereby informed Mrs. Collins, the plaintiff, that he was desirous of selling the east half of lot 42 Public Road (which was the portion of land mentioned in the agreement of lease between S.N. Collins and W.N. Wason — Exhibit ‘B’) for $18,000.00, or the north half of the said east half of lot 42 subject to a right of way for $10,000.00 and, also, sub-lot ‘A’ of the west half of lot 42 Public Road for $5,000.00 in a letter dated 6 th February 1958, Exhibit ‘Y’. Mr. W.N. Wason gave the plaintiff four (4) months from the date of her receipt of those respective letters within which to exercise the option to purchase the property mentioned. This was in accordance with paragraph four (4) of the original agreement between S.N. Collins and himself.
According to Mrs. Collins, the plaintiff, after she received the letter Exhibit ‘X’, above-mentioned, she had gone to a Mr. Whitehead to get a mortgage as she was interested in the whole of the eastern half including the northern half of the eastern half on which her house stands. She was not interested in the western half. Whitehead had then arranged a mortgage for her, but she did not take up the mortgage. She did not reply in writing to any of the options offered in either of the letters — Exhibit ‘X’ or Exhibit ‘Y’.
The agreement of lease entered into between S.N. Collins and W.N. Wason — Exhibit ‘B’ had stipulated in paragraph four (4) that the option “shall be in writing and to e exercised within four (4) months.” She consulted her lawyer. She did not instruct him to write a letter. Mrs. Collins never replied in writing within four (4) months or afterwards accepting any of the options offered her, nor did she make any counter offer satisfactory to herself or suggest negotiations in writing. Mrs. Collins said that instead of replying in writing to the letters Exhibit “X” and Exhibit “Y” in which the options were offered, she had gone to the home of Mr. Wason and told Mr. and Mrs. Wason that she was prepared to buy. According to Mrs. Collins, Mrs. Wason then had told her that there was a misunderstanding between herself and husband when they had decided to sell, and that they were no longer selling that land.
Mr. William Nathaniel Wasno in his evidence said that after he had written the letters Exhibit “X” and Exhibit “Y” to Mrs. Collins, she had never replied either in writing or verbally, that she had made no response whatever and that she did not go to his house to discuss the question of buying the land, and never discussed that question with him. He further said that his wife, the defendant, did not tell Mrs. Collins that they were no longer selling the land. Mrs. Diana Perry Wason, the defendant, said that after she bought the land from her husband, she too had offered a portion of the land to Mrs. Collins for sale, but Mrs. Collins had refused.
Having regard to the relationship between the parties and to the respective attitude of the plaintiff on the one hand and of the defendant and her husband on the other as revealed in all the circumstances in evidence in this case, I am convinced that it is more probable that not only did Mrs. Collins did not reply in writing to the letter of option contained in the letters Exhibit “X” and Exhibit “Y” but also that she did not reply verbally at all, and that she did not visit the home of the defendant and her husband to express her willingness to but the land in response to those letters, nor did she express any willingness at all to buy at anytime after she was given the opportunity to purchase. Mrs. Collins never exercised the option to purchase which was offered her by Mr. Wason in compliance with the original agreement.
Following on Mrs. Wason's purchase of the property mentioned in the transport Exhibit “AA”, from her husband Mr. W.N. Wason, she sought to sell a part of the said property to one Dolores Mosley and to pass transport of the portion of land so sold to the said Dolores Mosley. The opposition entered by the plaintiff in this matter is against the attempt by the defendant to do so, and the plaintiff asks this court to declare that the opposition which she had entered to the passing of the transport to Dolores Mosley is just, legal and well founded. The plaintiff is, also, asking for a declaration that she is entitled to be given the first option of purchasing the property mentioned in the agreement of lease between William Nathaniel Wason and S.N. Collins, deceased.
The plaintiff, also, asks for a declaration that she is entitled to be given the first option of purchasing the aforesaid property at the reasonable market price obtaining at the time of sale to Dolores Mosley.
The defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to exercise the option mentioned in paragraph four (4) of the agreement made between W.N. Wason and S.N. Collins, deceased, and that the said option was not effective as it offended the rule against perpetuities, alternatively, that the said option was not binding on the defendant or no longer existed. The defendant, also contended that the plaintiff's claim was bad in law, and did not disclose a cause of action, and that the opposition was not just, legal and well founded.
It is beyond dispute that William Nathaniel Wason and Sampson Nathaniel Collins entered into an agreement of lease whereby S.N. Collins leased, or, purported to lease the eastern portion of lot 42, Public Roads Kitty for a term of ten (10) years from 1 st July 1944 with a right of renewal of the lease.
It is, also, beyond dispute that it was mutually agreed between William N. Wason and S.N. Collins that S.N. Collins would have what is described as the option to purchase or lease the said lot 42 in the event of Wason's being desirous of disposing of same at any time and that S.N. Collins agreed to give Wason the option of acquiring any building which may be erected by him (Collins) on the premises. It was specifically stated that the said option in each event shall be in writing and shall, be exercised within four (4) months.
Before the expiration of ten (10) year period which commenced on 1 st July 1944 S.N. Collins died. He died according to the document — Exhibit “A” on 21 st July 1949. Thereafter, for the remainder of the period mentioned in the lease exhibit “B”, the rights and obligations under the agreement of lease...
To continue reading
Request your trial