Turner gave judgement at H. Supreme Court on July 30 in the cage or H. x. Chai v. West hua Estates Ld., which was an action to recover Tls. 16,527.50, tne difference in interest between tac contract rate and the rate allowed to plaintiff on Tls. 55,000 by his' bankers, the latter sum being the amount involved in an unconcluded loan transaction.
His Lordship said: In February of this year the defendant Company was in need of money: they were being pressed to pay off a mortgage on their properties. Through one Cumine, a director, they were in communication with the plaintiff, who already held a second mortgage on the properties. He agreed to lend them Tls. 55,000 on March 31, 1920, on certain terms contained in a letter of February 12. To these terms Cumine on behalf of the defendants agreed, and the transaction appeared to be closed. The interest demanded by the plaintiff was undoubtedly high, just about 20 per cent. On March 16, the defendant refused to carry out the bargain and the plaintiff sues for damages for this breach of the contract.
Now I am satisfied that a breach of @ contract to borrow money gives rise to an action for damages: and the measure of these damages 18 the loss sustained by the lender in consequence of the borrower's default. Several defences have been raised to the claim: principally that there was a new condition sought to be imposed by the plaintiff and that the defendant would not, therefore, agree; that the damages are not proved and in any event as claimed are too remote. It is also claimed that the contract harsh and unconscionable and that this Court in its equitable jurisdiction will relieve the defendants from its onerous terms. On this last point it is enough to say that I can find no case anywhere approaching this one where a Court of Equity has interfered. The defendants were being pressed for money, that is true; but they were business people, going into the transaction with their eyes open and knowing the position fully. They had agreed to heavy terms, if you like, for their money; but that is not enough to induce the Court to interfere. There is nothing in this case to lead one to snenect constructive fraud or any thing of that sort: and it certainly does not come within the principles laid down in Nevil v. Snelling (15 Eh. Div. 679).
As to the damages, if the defendants have broken the contract, the plaintiff is entitled to some damages; and surely they must be
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.