Sheffield Daily Telegraph – Saturday 03 December 1927
Ex-Service Man’s Loss.
County Court Sequel to Business Bargain.
Said to have a bad business bargain, a disabled ex-Serviceman, Theophilis Taylor, of 6, Wharf Road. Kilnhurst, claimed damages from Harry Shirtcliffe, of 312, Shirland Lane, Attercliffe, in the Sheffield County Court yesterday in respect of aJleged misrepresentation concerning the sale of a partnership in a newsagency business.
Plaintiff also asked for a dissolution of the partnership between himself and defendant. There was a counter-claim by Shirtcliffe for £2OO, balance of purchase money on the sale of the business, but this was abandoned during the hearing of the case
Mr. A. F. Bates, for the plaintiff, said said that at the beginning of this year Taylor saw an advertisement offering for sale “a splendid newsagency and mixed business.” with profits of £7 to £8 a week, the price mentioned being £4OO. Through that advertisement he got in touch with Shirtcliffe. and after various negotiations it was eventually agreed that he should take a half share of the business in partnership with Shirtcliffe. For this he paid £2OO and it was agreed that if liked the business he could take it over altogether on payment of another £2OO.
The trading during the partnership resulted a profit of £2 6s. ld. in the first week, profit of £1 10s. 4d. in the second week, a loss of Is. 7d., profit of 10s. 10d., and a loss of £9 18s. 2d being incurred in subsequent weeks, no figures being available for the sixth week.
Altogether, Taylor drew £2 10s. as his share of the profits during that period. The takings varied from £3O to £25 per week.
Mr. C.H. Elliott (for defendant) said that since the beginning of the action the business had been sold and the money paid into court, so that in fact the partnership was dissolved. No books had ever been kept in connection with the business, and he could not conceive how any accounts were going to be produced.
“We have the greatest sympathy with the plaintiff in this case,” said Mr. Elliott. “He is an invalid and he has made an exceedingly bad bargain. The sale of the whole business only realised £210.”
Defendant said that before the strike he used take £4O to £5O a week, and at the time he advertised the business for sale his takings actually were to £4O week, as he had stated. He did not know the reason why the takings and profits decreased so much when Taylor was in the business.
Judge Lias ordered the dissolution of the partnership, decided that the plaintiff had succeeded in his application for the provision of accounts, and gave judgment for £66 Is. to be paid ‘to the plaintiff. Defendant was awarded costs on the issue of misrepresentation which plaintiff had not succeeded, and the plaintiff costs on the other issues.